Table of contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 5
An historical outline of diplomacy ................................................................................ 8
The resident embassy ............................................................................................................... 8
The French system .................................................................................................................. 10
The ministry of foreign affairs ................................................................................................. 11
Public diplomacy .......................................................................................................... 11
Goals of public diplomacy ....................................................................................................... 13
Public diplomacy and propaganda .......................................................................................... 14
The established diplomacy and public diplomacy .................................................................. 14
Three dimensions of public diplomacy ................................................................................... 16
News management ............................................................................................................. 16
Strategic communications ................................................................................................... 17
Relationship building ........................................................................................................... 18
Nation branding ............................................................................................................ 19
On branding............................................................................................................................. 20
Limits to nation branding ........................................................................................................ 21
Planning branding campaigns ................................................................................................. 22
Cultural diplomacy ....................................................................................................... 22
Theory ............................................................................................................................ 24
Soft Power ............................................................................................................................... 25
Power .................................................................................................................................. 25
The three chessboards of power......................................................................................... 28
Growing importance of soft power ..................................................................................... 30
1
Soft power and public diplomacy........................................................................................ 31
Neorealism .............................................................................................................................. 33
Human behavior .................................................................................................................. 34
State structure..................................................................................................................... 34
International anarchy .......................................................................................................... 35
The international political system ....................................................................................... 36
On anarchy .......................................................................................................................... 38
On socialization ................................................................................................................... 38
Constructivism......................................................................................................................... 39
The Hobbesian culture ........................................................................................................ 40
The Lockean culture ............................................................................................................ 43
The Kantian culture ............................................................................................................. 44
The socialization of international relations......................................................................... 48
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 49
Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 50
Application of soft power ........................................................................................................ 50
New ways of conducting diplomacy.................................................................................... 51
More efficient in reaching foreign policy goals ................................................................... 52
Breakthrough in international relations.............................................................................. 52
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 53
Application of neorealism ....................................................................................................... 53
New ways of conducting diplomacy.................................................................................... 54
More efficient in reaching foreign policy goals ................................................................... 54
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 55
Application of constructivism.................................................................................................. 55
New ways of conducting diplomacy.................................................................................... 56
2
More efficient in reaching foreign policy goals ................................................................... 56
Breakthrough in international relations.............................................................................. 57
Summary ............................................................................................................................. 57
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 58
Abstract of “The New Era of Diplomacy: The Effects of Public Diplomacy, Nation
Branding and Cultural Diplomacy” ........................................................................... 64
3
Introduction
During my internship at the Danish Embassy in Tokyo in 2007 I learned that public
diplomacy is one of the most important concepts in the Danish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs at the moment. This is underlined by the recent opening of the public diplomacy
division in the ministry, who orchestrates the total public diplomacy effort by the
foreign ministry in close cooperation with the representations abroad. (Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Denmark)
At the embassy public diplomacy was mentioned on a daily basis, but when asked
directly nobody could really give a fulfilling answer for what it constituted and what
aspects it included. There I later found out it was often mixed up completely with nation
branding initiatives and advertisement in general. This lack of complete understanding
for a topic everybody talked about but nobody seemed to be able to define completely
sparked my interest to go deeper in the topic.
This tendency is not restricted to Denmark alone. Public diplomacy is increasingly
gaining importance in several ministries of foreign affairs especially in the more
economically developed countries – notably Canada, Norway and the United States all
have a very well developed public diplomacy. The United States has it for quite obvious
reasons as it has the biggest foreign service and because they are often engaged deeper
with several different areas around the world than many other states. Norway and
Canada on the other hand are more interesting in this relation as they both have
comparatively smaller foreign services yet they have chosen to become among the
leading trend setters in relation to public diplomacy. Furthermore France is noteworthy
as they have the world’s largest funding for cultural diplomacy – which is a close
relative of public diplomacy.
The reason for the increasingly central placement of this former niche area of the
diplomatic effort has been the recognition of the value of winning the hearts and minds
of the people and the growing importance of civil society in international relations. So
the ministries of foreign affairs have to widen their focus and not just concentrate their
efforts on foreign government offices and the multilateral diplomacy. (Melissen 2007:
xvii-xxii)
4
A concept linked to, yet very different from, public diplomacy is that of nation
branding. This is an approach where governments and the foreign services have been
inspired by modern marketing concepts such as brand creation. The thought is that it is
possible to mould people’s perception of a state or organization by using some of the
same tools as commercial enterprises use to sell their products. Even though the
approach seems increasingly popular amongst western states it is difficult to come by
solid proof that it is working or that it is beneficial to use commercial approaches like
this in politics.
It is quite symptomatic that focus to a higher extent Is moving away from the traditional
approaches of the ministry of foreign affairs. There is a wide tendency to ‘think outside
the box’ in conducting foreign relation policies – with very varying degrees of success.
Furthermore the ministries of foreign affairs in a wide range of countries are trying to
combat previous stigma of being closed, secretive and elitist and there seems to be an
increasing awareness of the importance of mass media and public opinion.
The thesis will try to uncover why these new approaches to conducting diplomacy and
maintaining or creating good foreign relations have emerged and how significant a role
they are and will be playing in international relations. Furthermore it will be explored
whether the importance of the ministries of foreign affairs can be deemed as increasing
or decreasing. The problem formulation of the thesis will be as follows:
“Why have several ministries of foreign affairs lately made moves to reinvent
themselves and have been introducing several new ways of conducting diplomacy? Is
the increased focus on mass media and public relations more successful in reaching
foreign policy goals compared to the traditional means of diplomatic practice and can
this constitute a breakthrough in international relations?”
Methodology
This chapter will describe in what way the main problem will be approached –
including which theories will be used and what role they play in the thesis, which data
will be used and the analytical approach. It is the hope that this chapter will help give a
5
logical framework for the thesis, will help clarify why the thesis is structured the way it
is and why this is a suitable way to reach a conclusion.
The theories which will be used to analyze the problem are all based in quite
conventional theories within international relations – neorealism, neoliberalism and
constructivism. The latter two theories have been chosen because they can both be
conducive to the analysis of the problem instead of dismissing the importance of public
diplomacy, nation branding and similar concepts right away – which a theory like
neorealism would have a tendency to do. Within neoliberalism the main concept used
will be Joseph S. Nye’s soft power, which stresses the existence and importance of
other power factors than military and economic might – which he terms hard power.
The acknowledgement of the power of attractiveness being just as military and
economic power and worth competing over will help justify the existence and growing
importance of public diplomacy, nation branding and other communicative strategies of
conducting foreign affairs and will ultimately – it is hoped – provide a path to
understanding whether these approaches signify a more effective way of achieving
foreign policy goals compared to traditional diplomatic tools.
Constructivism will be used as it can possibly attribute even more importance to the
increased focus on dialogue and communication in international relations than
neoliberalism and soft power can. The reason for this being that constructivism is more
open to the potential change of the most basic of mechanisms in international relations.
Therefore it will be explored whether the new approaches might be a tool of states to
change the most basic premises of the community of states in the world of today.
The final theory utilized in the thesis will be neorealism. The choice has fallen upon this
theory to maintain a critical view of the new communicative approaches to diplomacy
and international relations and question the importance of it altogether. Furthermore it
will pose counter arguments to the other two theories and thereby help driving forth the
analysis and discussion of the problem.
6
It is standing out that the choices of theories are all very state-centred which might be
considered as quite old-fashioned, but taking the problem formulation in to account this
is the most obvious way to approach the problem. As focus is on the traditional
diplomacy and its utilization of these new concepts the theoretical focus will therefore
also need to be centred on state agents. Even though international organizations, NGOs,
big business and civil society in general all can be involved in both public diplomacy,
nation branding or cultural diplomacy in one way or the other focus remains on state
institutions and their views on international relations.
After this chapter of methodology the empirical chapters will follow. These will include
a short outline of the development of traditional diplomacy and ministries of foreign
affairs which will set the setting from where the new concepts will have to be viewed in
relations to the scope of the thesis. The short outline will be followed by a presentation
of the three communicative aspects of the new way of conducting diplomacy, namely –
public diplomacy, nation branding and cultural diplomacy. The main focus will be on
the concept of public diplomacy as this must be deemed the most significant new
approach to diplomacy and foreign affairs. Cultural diplomacy is not a new concept in
international relations but will be presented together with public diplomacy and nation
branding nonetheless as it is so closely related to these and overlaps the two other
concepts in several areas.
After the empirical chapter the three theories mentioned above will be presented and
discussed after which the analysis will follow. In the analysis the explanatory models of
the three theories above will be applied to the empirical evidence and will be poised
against each other. The analysis will generally be quite heavy on the theoretical side as
the new public diplomacy in particular still is a fairly new phenomenon and difficult to
measure in general so undisputable empirical evidence is generally limited and difficult
to come by. Furthermore it is the theoretical discussion which is truly the most
interesting aspect of the possibilities of public diplomacy, nation branding and cultural
diplomacy, as this cannot be answered unless one has a clear understanding, or rather
belief, of how the dynamics of international relations truly work and whether the
mechanisms are static or not. As an extension to this, the data which will be used in the
thesis will be of a secondary character.
7
An historical outline of diplomacy
As the main premise of this thesis is involving the changed focus of the traditional
diplomatic institutions an outline of how diplomacy was established and evolved is
essential to maintain the relevance of the problem itself. Furthermore expanding this
historical outline to cover diplomacy in general is thought to provide a fundamental
basis of understanding for how public diplomacy, nation branding and cultural
diplomacy potentially might benefit from the diplomatic machinery already in place –
i.e. the contacts and reputation of the embassies and to a lesser extent the consulates
might have.
Diplomacy is as old as civilization itself, with the first signs of rudimentary diplomatic
activity taking place as long ago as possibly the fourth millennium BC in the near and
middle east. At this time the diplomatic activity was quite sporadic as communication
over long distances by traders and messengers was very slow and unpredictable. In
antiquity diplomatic practice began to evolve both in frequency and in mutually
accepted norms – such as diplomatic immunity. This can possibly be attributed to the
multitude of small – usually coastal – Greek city states compared to the large inland
empires of the ancient Near and Middle East. (Berridge 2005: 1-2)
The resident embassy
During the middle ages the diplomatic system had entrenched itself into two main types
of envoys – the nuncius and the plenipotentiary. The plenipotentiary was travelling as
the direct representative of his liege usually of high nobility and had full negotiation
powers whereas the nuncius was limited to delivering a message. Sending off an
embassy each time negotiations between states would take place became very expensive
and troublesome due to the pomp and often quarrels between the negotiators about
precedence and ceremony. Partly due to this the resident embassy was born in the
Italian city states in the late fifteenth century. It was also soon discovered that not only
was having a resident embassy within a state cost effective but also beneficial in the
creation of contacts, creating a better understanding of the state and thereby creating an
invaluable source of information. (Berridge 2005: 108-109)
8
Contemporary of the creation of the resident embassy was the infamous political
philosopher and career diplomat Niccolo Machiavelli and, although he didn’t spend
much time theorizing about diplomacy as such, he had some interesting opinions on
diplomatic practice which illustrate the crossroads of which Italy around 1500 can be
seen. Machiavelli believed in permanent diplomacy within all courts important to a
country – both with friends and foes, as you never could know when a friend turned into
a foe. Even though Machiavelli was in favor of the new modern resident diplomacy his
ideas were in many ways far from what would later become the widely accepted
diplomatic norms. For one he was in strong favor frequent use of deception and bribery
to achieve goals – which in later diplomatic practice would be advised against as it in
the long run would ruin the reputation and credibility of the embassy and in turn their
home government. Also, he didn’t see the diplomat as being part of an international
system but rather merely serving selfish interests for the diplomat himself and for the
state he served in what he saw as the almost continuous state of war between states.
(Berridge 2001: 21-24)
A later but very important diplomatic thinker was the de facto ruler of France 16241642 – Cardinal Richelieu. He was a strong proponent of diplomacy and preferred it
much to the use of brute force, particularly Richelieu is known for his concept of
continuous negotiation. By this he means that the state must have diplomatic
representations in all courts – even where it doesn’t seem worthwhile. Furthermore the
representations shall not be limited to gathering information but must conduct
negotiations at all times to reach objectives even where the objective seems difficult if
not impossible to reach or where no interesting objectives are to be found. Negotiations
doesn’t necessarily have to take place along the established channels either they can be
done in secrecy too if that is preferable. But the most important goal for Richelieu is the
reputation of the state and the sovereign – who is the embodiment of the state. Through
the vast network of diplomatic representations France in this case would have a large
amount of diplomatic agents speaking the case of their home country in all countries.
The continuous negotiation is therefore in many cases only secondarily intended to
achieve specific political or economic goals, but primarily a way of advocating the
viewpoints of the French state and increase awareness and perhaps in time support for
these causes. (Berridge 2001: 71-82)
9
Richelieu can in this regard be seen as much ahead of his time as much of his
continuous negotiation concept can be seen as a form of proto-nation branding or public
diplomacy centuries before these concepts were even coined.
The French system
As the diplomatic practice became more ingrown it began to be institutionalized. As
Richelieu had recommended diplomatic representations had become more widespread
and permanent and the role of the resident embassy gradually increased its status –
where it previously primarily was the occasional special envoys that had the highest
status it was now the ambassador. This institutionalization of diplomatic practice
created a sense of professionalism and collegiality between the diplomats in the
different capitals – the notion of the diplomatic corps was created. The diplomatic corps
became a valuable source of information for all involved diplomats as well as having
some similarities with a trade union as all the diplomats had some similar interests, such
as maintaining the diplomatic immunity. (Berridge 2005: 112)
Another development introduced with the French system of diplomacy was that of
secrecy. Negotiations generally began to be held in secrecy in order for both parties to
have a bit more leeway in the process without having too much interference from the
negotiators home governments or from public sentiment. This secret style of negotiation
was favored because usually both parties of a negotiation would need to give in on some
areas to reach a deal. This would be easier to present to their government and in turn the
public after the deal had been struck. Unfortunately this also stigmatized the diplomatic
corps as being closed and unapproachably, which is a reputation that might limit their
success in public diplomacy unless the image undergoes a change.
As the diplomatic practice had become institutionalized some dilemmas became visibly.
One of the main dilemmas was the tradeoff between experience and loyalty. The longer
time a diplomat was stationed at a location the larger chance he had of establishing an
invaluable network of contacts and gains a deeper understanding of the place he was
stationed. On the other hand, diplomats who were stationed at the same location for
long stretches of time ran the risk of going native. This means that the diplomat can
10
begin to have more sympathetic views of the policies and viewpoints of the place he is
stationed rather than his home government. To avoid this, ministries of foreign affairs
generally imposed a time limit for how long a diplomat could be allowed to be stationed
at the same location, which still is in effect to this day. (Berridge 2005: 110-114)
The ministry of foreign affairs
The ministry of foreign affairs is a fairly new invention in the world of diplomatic
practice. Even though the first ministry of foreign affairs was created by Cardinal
Richelieu in France it didn’t spread that much before the end of the eighteenth century,
when the ministries were opened in countries such as United Kingdom and the newly
independent United States. It wasn’t until the nineteenth century real importance can be
put on the ministry.
The reason for the creation of the ministries has primarily been to standardize
diplomatic procedures, create consistency in policies and provide analysis of reports
received from the diplomatic representations. In many countries there has been a sharp
distinction between the work of the ministry at home and the work of the
representations abroad – often separate career paths within each sector. Smaller
countries tend to have the areas mixed though. (Berridge 2005: 5-8)
Ministries of foreign affairs are usually the entity organizing and planning strategies of
public diplomacy though they will also include several other organizations, institutions
and other groupings. Below follows a more in depth presentation of public diplomacy
and how it is practiced.
Public diplomacy
As it has been made clear above, diplomatic practice has always been centered on
official bilateral or multilateral channels of communication between states and has
usually been shrouded in secrecy. While this traditional diplomacy will continue to be
essential for states to conduct their foreign relations, several governments have begun to
realize that it is necessary not only to target foreign governments in their efforts to reach
foreign policy goals. One of the most notable products of this realization has been the
11
growth of public diplomacy – i.e. diplomacy targeted not at foreign governments but
rather at selected segments of foreign publics. The practitioners of public diplomacy
will utilize several tools in their efforts to clarify the policies of their government to
avoid misunderstandings based on propaganda or lack of information in the hope of
eventually winning the hearts and minds of foreign publics. This chapter will go in
depth with the exploration of public diplomacy goals and tools. (Ross 2002: 75-77)
New public diplomacy is based on a number of principles which distinguishes it clearly
from other related topics. These principles can help to give a basic overview of the
concept and are as follows:
1. “dialogue, not monologue. To awaken understanding and wanting to understand
2. integration in the other diplomacy from the beginning
3. cooperation with non-state partners
4. work after the network method, not the hierarchical method
5. coherence between the public diplomacy work at home and abroad
6. tailored solutions for assignments: “There is no common definition or common
behavior which fits everyone.”
7. honest and reliable information, not propaganda
8. observer role, i.e. registration of other countries’ behavior in the area with later
reporting back to the home country.”1 (Andreasen 2007: 38-39)
This diverse concept occupying the crossroads between communication strategy,
propaganda, cultural diplomacy and traditional diplomatic practice will be presented
and explored in further detail in this chapter. The aim of the chapter is to provide a
thorough basis for a later analysis of this and related diplomatic/communicative
1
Translated from Danish: 1: dialog , ikke monolog. At vække til forståelse og at ville forstå 2: integration
i det øvrige diplomati fra startfasen 3: samarbejde med ikke-statslige partnere 4: arbejde efter
netværksmetoden, ikke den hierarkiske metode 5: sammenhæng mellem public diplomacy-arbejdet i
hjemlandet og udland 6: skræddersyede opgaveløsninger: ”Der er ingen fælles definition eller fælles
adfærd som passer alle.” 7: ærlige og pålidelige informationer, ikke propaganda 8: observatørrolle, dvs.
registrering af andre landes adfærd på området med efterfølgende indberetning til den hjemlige instans.
12
practices in order to conclude whether it is a more effective means of reaching foreign
policy goals or not.
Goals of public diplomacy
Public diplomacy can make impacts on several levels depending on how successful the
public diplomacy initiatives are conducted, for how long they run and how many
resources are invested in them. The possible achievements for public diplomacy are
listed below in a hierarchical order:

“Increasing people’s familiarity with one’s country (making them think about it,
updating their images, turning around unfavourable opinions)

Increasing people’s appreciation of one’s country (creating positive
perceptions, getting others to see issues of global importance from the same
perspective)

Engaging people with one’s country (strengthening ties – from education reform
to scientific co-operation; encouraging people to see us as an attractive
destination for tourism, study, distance learning; getting them to buy our
products; getting to understand and subscribe to our values)

Influencing people (getting companies to invest, publics to back our positions or
politicians to turn to us as a favoured partner)” (Leonard 2002: 9-10)
So the goals of public diplomacy can span a vast area from basically introducing the
country to targeted audiences or dispelling any misperceptions they might have about it
to actively engaging people with the country by attracting people there for sightseeing,
studies or making investments or political deals. The hopes of what to expect of public
diplomacy initiatives relies on how the relations already are and in which areas mainly
are sought strengthened – be it political, economic or cultural relations.
13
Public diplomacy and propaganda
It can be tempting to see public diplomacy as a more easily digestible term for what has
always gone under the name of propaganda. Although the concepts are related in that
they both seek to affect the opinions of foreign publics they are, needless to say, very
different too. Generally speaking, propaganda seeks to narrow down the horizon of
people by trying to mould their minds through any means necessary while public
diplomacy strives to open the minds of people through information and education.
Public diplomacy of course has the motives to broaden the minds of people in what they
see as the right direction and has a specific agenda but it can be more helpful to see it as
counter-propaganda or the breaking down of prejudices the receiver has of the sender.
Public diplomacy has furthermore borrowed crucial experiences from the conventional
diplomacy – namely lies and disinformation is in the long run very counter-productive
and should never be done. As soon as diplomatic practitioners are caught in spreading
disinformation in any area it undermines all their work and the messages they have been
trying to send out. (Melissen 2007: 16-19)
A final distinction between propaganda and public diplomacy is, while propaganda
continuously spreads messages to its targeted audiences public diplomacy utilizes a
two-way communication strategy. Practitioners of public diplomacy has to listen to
what their audiences thinks and has to say about them and their governments, since this
will provide them more credibility and opportunity to continuously tailor the messages
they are sending out to have the biggest positive impact. The key is not the amount of
information sent out but rather finding out the most effective way to deliver the correct
message by the right means to achieve the best result. An understanding of the situation
and general viewpoints of different segments of the target population has to be
developed in order to achieve these results. (Leonard 2002: 46-49)
The established diplomacy and public diplomacy
The emergence of the new public diplomacy has created a vast array of conundrums for
the established diplomatic community and their ministries of foreign affairs. One of the
biggest challenges in this regard is how to integrate this new area in the diplomatic
14
organization. The very nature of public diplomacy is to seem open and outreaching
which historically has not been one of the strongest suits of the diplomatic corps – who
always has had an aura of secrecy and inapproachability about it. This is because as
mentioned earlier partly because it has previously been necessary for them to conduct
negotiations with counterparts and to investigate situations of the countries they are
stationed in – neither of which is an area conducive to a culture of openness. (Hocking
2007: 35-40)
The reason openness is a necessity for successful public diplomacy is not only that it
targets foreign publics but also that it is useful to include other organizations in parts of
the public diplomacy strategies. Cooperation with NGOs, the private sector (including
mass media) or other state organizations (i.e. ministries of education, trade/economy or
culture) are all obvious means of enhancing the impacts of the strategies as the
ministries of foreign affairs will inevitably have limited resources and connections. (van
Ham 2003: 432-433)
These groupings and organizations are necessary to include in any public diplomacy
strategy as they have expertise knowledge in areas the ministry of foreign affairs and
their staff lacks. Furthermore the incorporation of NGOs and civil society can give an
aura of credibility to public diplomacy initiatives which government officials would
never be able to do – especially towards potentially hostile population segments. The
involvement of non-governmental actors should both include people and organizations
in the sending and receiving countries and could include journalists, universities,
individual academics, businessmen or artists just to mention a few. The most interesting
for public diplomacy planners are to get people and organizations involved with the
strategy in the receiving country, but it will often be necessary to recruit people in the
sending country first to give the initiative credibility. One of the big challenges for the
traditional diplomacy will therefore be to include more actors and begin to show more
openness. (Riordan 2007: 90-91)
15
Three dimensions of public diplomacy
Public diplomacy activities can roughly be divided in to three dimensions depending on
the specific needs in different scenarios. These three dimensions are reactive, proactive
and relationship building – and can be directed towards the political/military, economic
or societal/cultural areas or any combination of these. The reactive variation of public
diplomacy practice centers on news management and is a very short term strategy to
spread the official opinion of the government about any news affecting it in any way.
The proactive approach is a medium term strategy to actively create positive news
regarding any messages governments want to send out – for example through the
organization of events and activities. Finally the relationship building approach is the
long term strategy to create, maintain and improve relations between foreign people and
the sending country. This takes years of funding of programs of for example scholarship
sponsoring. Below follows a more in depth presentation of the three dimensions.
(Leonard 2002: 10-11)
News management
This dimension of public diplomacy includes a short term rapid response strategy. The
main idea behind this approach is that when something happens in the world which
might affect people’s perception of a government it is necessary to react fast and ensure
the government’s official positions are explained and clarified to the public. One major
obstacle for this approach is that it is very difficult to tailor a message to a certain group
of people as most people around the world will have access to more or less the same
information and will also hear what government officials has to say about an issue. This
can be illustrated very well with following quote of Colin Powell about his time in the
Gulf War where he told his staff:
“’Remember, when we are out there on television, communicating instantaneously
around the world, we’re talking to five audiences.’ One, the reporters who ask the
question – important audience. Second audience, the American people who are
watching. The third audience, 170 capitals who may have an interest in what the subject
is. Fourth, you are talking to your enemy. It was a unique situation to know that your
16
enemy was getting the clearest indication of your intentions by watching you on
television at the same time you were giving that message. And fifth, you were talking to
the troops. Their lives were on the line.” (Leonard 2002: 12-13)
This illustrates the dilemma practitioners of public diplomacy faces when confronted
with conventional mass media. It is problematic to convey a message in a rhetoric
which will not be misconstrued by some of the audience. The public diplomacy plans
can easily be scrapped in favor of pleasing domestic crowds.
A way to direct the correct communication to a chosen foreign public or grouping in
another country to the fullest effect is to increase support and potentially funding for
local media. By funneling the messages which is in correlation with the public
diplomacy strategy through local media with a limited audience, it is easier to tailor a
message which will provide a satisfactory result in relation to this local audience. This
approach can be enhanced further if one of the locals convey this message as the
audience will believe more in one of their own than in foreign government
representatives – especially in areas hostile towards the sending government. (Hoffman
2002: 91-93)
Strategic communications
This dimension of public diplomacy represents the medium-term strategy which lasts
for months at a time. This approach emphasizes on setting the news agenda instead of
just responding to what is happening and can be done through events or organizing
advertisement campaigns – where public diplomacy begins to overlap towards its
related concept of nation branding. The strategic communication strategy can be aimed
at improving relations in either political, economical and cultural areas or any
combination of these. Events could be anything from hosting the Olympics or a summit
on global warming depending on what image a country would like to promote.
The main difference from the first dimension here is thereby that it in the second
dimension is possible for the actor to put more planning and consideration in to the
messages they send out and can more easily target the people and organizations they
would like to affect with the message or image they send out. A problem within this
17
area in the meantime is that different state organizations will often have diverging
interests in what image they want to promote. An example here could be whether to
promote a country’s more traditional sides to promote tourism or the more modern sides
to promote investments. (Leonard 2002: 11, 14-17)
A first hand example of this was the dilemma the commercial section of the Danish
embassy in Japan was standing in when they had they were publishing the magazine
Hello Denmark to the Japanese public. As the two main interests for the Danish strategy
towards Japan was to attract investments and to increase tourism, they had to promote
an image of an idyllic country with small villages and a highly technologically modern
country well worthwhile investing in.
Relationship building
The third and last dimension of public diplomacy is relationship building – this is the
most long term strategy used and is potentially the most significant. The relationship
building programs stretches over years and is aimed at giving deep insight to a select
group of people of one’s country through various schemes such as scholarships and
network creation. A notable element to this approach is that the planning governmental
organization plays a secondary/facilitating role as the approach is mainly focused on
establishing networks between likeminded people across borders – be it politicians,
academics, artists or businessmen. A truly successful relationship building public
diplomacy effort will be very costly as it will have to administer, plan and sponsor the
exchange of a significant amount of people in order for it to have a decent impact.
(Leonard 2002: 18-20)
Probably the most important relationship building scheme is educational exchange. If
governments set up beneficial conditions for foreigners to come to their country to study
for months or years they are sure to get a nuanced picture of the country they are
staying. These will possibly then function as de facto ambassadors for the country they
had been towards their friends or families. An added bonus is that some of these people
who had been enjoying the benefits of such an exchange program might rise to
prominent positions within their own countries. It is estimated that 1500 cabinet-level
18
ministers and 200 current and former heads of state has been participating in the
American International Visitors Program. (Ross 2003: 27)
A potentially very important area to create ties and foster communication is between
political parties across borders. Facilitating meetings between members of similar
political parties and not just government officials and cabinet members will likely
provide increased understanding both between politicians but could secondarily affect
the message these politicians send out to their respective constituencies. An example of
this is Konrad Adenauer Stiftung which is a German organization which promotes
contact between Christian Democrat parties in different countries and is funded by the
state. (Leonard 2002b: 55)
Nation branding
Branding has for years been a buzzword in the business world and companies – big and
small alike – has channeled significant funds into the creation of their own brand and
increase brand-recognition. Before long this marketing approach has begun to spread to
the state sphere and the practice of location branding has arisen, with states hiring
branding consultants from the private sector. This new tendency has arisen at the
crossroads of public relations and international relations and for this reason ought to be
viewed together with the other communicative approaches of dealing with international
relations. (van Ham 2002: 249)
The increasing globalization has created a sharper competition between states as it has
become increasingly difficult to stand out from the others and governments have
therefore sought ways to increase their own relative competitive edge in relation with
their neighbors. Nation branding has here been a welcomed way to try to stand out from
other comparable countries. This chapter will go more in depth with how nation
branding originated and how it is practiced. (Cerny 2007: 272-273)
The idea of nation branding and the brand state is in a way not that new a concept. In a
way the creation of nations in itself is a kind of branding. When states began to be
transformed to nation-states primarily in the nineteenth century many strategies similar
19
to branding strategies were utilized. The creation of a national flag, a national anthem or
a constitution all helped setting the country apart from the others and created a kind of
national identity both for people viewing the state from the outside as well as its
citizens. (van Ham 2002: 259-260)
One of the main differences between the creation of nations in the 19th century and the
nation branding of the 21st century is that the creation of national ideas were primarily
planned to affect the inhabitants of the state whereas the nation branding initiatives are
directed towards foreign publics and corporations.
On branding
Before moving on it is necessary to explore the concept of branding in itself before
putting it in a national and international context. Branding is in its origin a part of an
advertisement terminology. Advertisement tries to deliver a message that a certain
product has a certain quality or promotes awareness about the product. Branding is
taking this a step further by adding some emotional value to the product and making the
product tell a story. This does not necessarily have to have anything to do with the
primary product function as such and the quality does not necessarily have to be better
than similar products. People’s perception of the product is what counts and by adding
some sort of emotional value to it will make it stand out from the rest as it has its very
own story to tell the consumer. With successful branding strategies and increased brandrecognition there will be an added value to it.
The idea behind nation or location branding is to give an added value to a country, to a
region or to an organization. The added value comes from the general perception people
around the world has about the country. They might see it as an environmentally
friendly country, technologically developed country or a very artistic country. Nation
branding is the conscious effort of state officials to define/redefine peoples’
understanding and view of their country. (van Ham 2004: 2-3)
It is suggested that there are four main reasons why it is a good idea to consider creating
a brand and they are as follows:
20
“…(1) products, services and locations have become so alike that they can no longer
differentiate themselves by their quality, reliability and other basic traits. Branding
adds emotion and trust to these ‘products’, thereby offering clues that make consumers’
choices somewhat easier; (2) this emotional relationship between brand and consumer
ensures loyalty to the brand; (3) by creating an aspiration lifestyle, branding offers a
kind of Ersatz for ideologies and political programmes that have lost their relevance;
and (4) the combination of emotions, relationships and lifestyle (values) allows a brand
to charge a price premium for their products, services and locations, which would
otherwise hardly be distinguishable from generics.” (van Ham 2002: 251)
So in short these reasons for embarking on brand creation campaigns are to set the
location apart from so many other similar locations and through this making people’s
perception of the location more favorable than to any other place and making sure they
will consider the place if they are planning a holiday, considering where to invest or any
other possible interaction with the place. By tying values to the locations the added
value will also come out of it and people will suddenly pay much more to go to one
holiday island instead of the neighboring one because of its brand recognition.
Limits to nation branding
It is not possible for a state to completely freely decide on what image they want to
show to the outside world as people around the world will likely already have some
perceptions of the country. These perceptions cover both countries people might know a
lot about such as ideas of Germany being a strict and efficient country or United
Kingdom being a conservative and traditionalist country or countries people might just
have a faint idea about. Estonia has for example struggled with getting rid of the stigma
of being a post-Soviet state through trying to brand itself as a pre-EU or Scandinavian
state. These mainstream views of a country can either be good or bad for a country and
the state can therefore try to get rid of or enhance the image. The German brand for
example has been good economically for the automotive sector as the cars made in
Germany will have a higher perceived value than the car made in Ukraine – it matters
less if the German car really is better than the Ukrainian one. The United Kingdom on
the other hand has generally had a bad brand economically resulting in for example
21
British Airways and British Telecom changing their names to BA and BT in an effort to
hide their country of origin. (van Ham 2002: 261-263)
Planning branding campaigns
The planning of nation branding campaigns poses several areas which are necessary to
consider. One main point is considering which interests a country and its inhabitants
have primarily. Even though nation branding campaigns could be designed to promote a
country’s art or cultural activities, three main areas tend to be in focus when considering
a nation branding campaign – namely the promotion of foreign direct investments,
exports or tourism. The strategy aimed primarily at increasing export usually promotes a
branding campaign which will increase the values of its major industries – be it cars,
agricultural products or the entertainment industry. A campaign focused on attracting
more foreign direct investments will likely be more state centered through advertizing
campaigns using relevant media. Finally a tourism centered brand creation campaign
will often have a very different approach than the export oriented campaign as it would
want to signal other values. When considering how to orchestrate a nation branding
campaign it will most likely be very unsuccessful if it is only based in state institution
but should rather be planned by both the public and private sector alike as well as
inclusion of any cultural venues/organizations will be of significant interest. (Olins
2007: 172-179)
Cultural diplomacy
The third and final communicative diplomatic approach to be explored is that of cultural
diplomacy. Cultural diplomacy stands out from the other two concepts – public
diplomacy and nation branding – in that it is not a fairly new concept like the others, but
it is just as old as traditional diplomacy itself. When relations were maintained between
states there would always have been an exchange of ideas, language, art and religion
taking place to mention but a few. (Arndt 2005: 1-2)
Cultural diplomacy is in short the official effort to facilitate exchange and spread of
culture around the world whether it is within music, art, philosophy or values. The effort
22
to spread one’s culture can have several different causes such as economic promotion or
the hope of transferring one’s values to people in other countries and thereby create
better relations. Of this reason cultural diplomacy can be seen as overlapping public
diplomacy significantly. (U.S. Department of State 2005: 1-7)
Different governments attribute very different importance to cultural diplomacy but
often it has been a quite neglected niche area compared to the more traditional
diplomatic activities. In the United States for example it has since the end of the Cold
War been a much neglected area despite rhetoric stating otherwise – cultural diplomacy
saw several significant budget cuts throughout the 1990s and the cultural diplomacy
organization USIA was even closed down. Other countries have practiced a more
successful cultural diplomacy than the United States – amongst these United Kingdom,
Germany and the former Soviet Union. Most noteworthy though is France with an
annual spending on cultural diplomacy of more than one billion US dollars and postions
in the French cultural diplomacy is very prestigious. (Schneider 2007: 156-158)
An important note on cultural diplomacy and cultural exchange is that cultural exchange
does not necessarily constitute cultural diplomacy. The key word in this relation is
diplomacy – the cultural exchange has to take its basis in an official initiative for it to be
classified as cultural diplomacy. The reason for this being that non-official cultural
exchange might bring the same or better benefits than the officially planned and funded
exchanges, but they are too erratic and unpredictable to include in measuring the
success or failure of cultural rapprochement. (Andreasen 2007: 62-63)
Following quote finely describes the definition and importance of cultural diplomacy as
follows:
“Cultural diplomacy may be defined as the use of various elements of culture to
influence foreign publics, opinion makers, and even foreign leaders. These elements
comprehend the entire range of characteristics within a culture: including the arts,
education, ideas, history, science, medicine, technology, religion, customs, manners,
commerce, philanthropy, sports, language, professional vocations, hobbies, etc. and the
various media by which these elements may be communicated. Cultural diplomacy
seeks to harness these elements to influence foreigners in several ways: to have a
23
positive view of the United States, its people, its culture, and its policies…”
(Lenczowski 2007: 196)
This signifies how very diverse the area of cultural diplomacy is and how vast an area it
is used to influence. Furthermore it gives a better idea of how closely related this area is
with that of public diplomacy. They do clearly overlap in several areas even if they are
not the same.
After these presentations of public diplomacy, nation branding and cultural diplomacy
an in depth presentation of the three theories used in the analysis will be presented –
namely soft power, neorealism and constructivism.
Theory
In this chapter the three theories which will be used as tools of the analysis will be
presented and discussed. The first neoliberalism will be presented and more specifically
the concept of soft power, which has been developed by the prominent neoliberal
theorist Joseph S. Nye. This section will explain how public diplomacy possibly can
work as a tool of the state to promote its soft power – the power of attractiveness – and
how this power is just as relevant as the hard power of military and economy.
The second theory which will be presented will be neorealism primarily on the basis of
Kenneth Waltz. The use of neorealism is primarily intended as a way to keep a critical
approach towards public diplomacy and maintain a counterargument towards the other
two theories which are more positive to public diplomacy. Neorealism will not attribute
much importance to public diplomacy – at best it will be a decent appendix to real
power politics.
The third and final theory presented will be constructivism as it has been developed by
Alexander Wendt. This theory will break away from both neoliberalism and neorealism
and be able to deliver the most positive approach to public diplomacy as constructivism
possibly is the most open theory of international relations towards potential change in
the most basic mechanisms of international affairs.
24
After the presentation of the three theories the analytical chapter will follow where each
theory will be attempted applied to the areas of public diplomacy, nation branding and
cultural diplomacy.
Soft Power
One of the central concepts developed by Joseph S. Nye, who is amongst the most
prominent theorists within the Neoliberal theory, is soft power. This concept was for the
first time presented in 1990 in Bound to Lead and has since been developed into its final
form as presented in Soft Power – the means to success in world politics from 2004.
Soft power is best explained when contrasted against its counterpart – hard power.
Where hard power is signified by the utilization of sheer force and coercion to reach
certain objectives, the more indirect soft power is a way of reaching the goal through
persuasion and cooperation – soft power uses carrots rather than sticks so to speak. One
thing the two have in common though is the term power. (Nye 2004: xi, 5-6)
Joseph S. Nye is educated from Princeton, Oxford and Harvard Universities and has
been publishing works related to theory of international relations since the 1970s and is
to this day very productive with several published articles and chapters in books every
year – 45 in 2008 alone. Non-academic positions he has held include Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Chair of the National
Intelligence Council, and Deputy Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance,
Science and Technology. (Harvard – Kennedy School)
Power
The central term power is very difficult to give a concrete definition of. An attempt to
make the term power seem more objectively measurable would be by looking at power
resources of a state – this could include military and economic strength, size of territory
and population or abundance of natural resources. This can be a useful approach when
power is defined as the ability to get what you want. This approach to try to understand
and measure power seems flawed though. Some countries which excel in many of these
measurable parameters don’t have the power which they ought to on the basis of their
resources – an example of this could be Japan since the 1960s. Japan having the second
25
largest economy in the world, a large population and advanced technology has
oftentimes been termed an economic giant but a political dwarf. On the other end of the
spectrum some countries seem to be more powerful than what their objectively
measurable resources would justify. Reasons for these discrepancies can explained by
different abilities of deception or by convincingly acting more powerful than what the
resources justify. Another factor which has to be taken into account is to see the
resources as potential power and this has to be mobilized into realized power. Before
resources are used specifically to increase the power of a state it does not really signify
power. (Nye 1991: 26-27)
Traditionally the real test of a country’s power would be its ability to wage war. The
basis of this ability has changed over time though. In the pre-industrialized society of
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the ability to wage war was primarily based on
a large population which would provide manpower and a basis of taxation in order to
hire mercenaries – this is why France was the leading power in Europe in this period.
This is best illustrated during the reign of the Sun King Louis XIV and culminating with
Napoleon Bonaparte where the most important power resources started to change with
the dawning industrial revolution. As industrial production capacity and efficient
administration became more important than population size and sheer manpower as a
basis of power the centers of power changed to the British Empire and slightly later
Germany. In the middle of the twentieth century the industrial capacity of USA and
USSR had far outgrown the traditional powers of the old world and another power
factor was now nuclear weapons as well the delivery methods of these. Since then the
traditional understanding of power as the ability to wage war has been significantly
modified. The horrifying destructive capacities of nuclear weapons were one of the
reasons of this as it had become too costly and risky for great powers to sort their
disputes on the battlefield. Other reasons include that high casualties are much less
acceptable to domestic populations in the post-industrialized society, territorial
expansion is much more difficult in a more nationally awakened world and economic
growth is often depending on a state’s reputation and relations with others. (Nye 2002:
5-7)
26
This change in power resources are finely illustrated in the table below where the
leading states of each century are lined up and the different resources of power these
utilized to achieve this status. Joseph S. Nye has furthermore included his prediction for
the 21st century. An interesting detail in this table is the gradual entrance of different
forms of soft power as a major resource of power:
Period
State
Major Resources
Sixteenth century
Spain
Gold bullion, colonial trade,
mercenary armies, dynastic
ties
Seventeenth century
Netherlands
Trade, capital markets, navy
Eighteenth century
France
Population, rural industry,
public administration, army,
culture (soft power)
Nineteenth century
Britain
Industry, political cohesion,
finance and credit, navy,
liberal norms (soft power),
island location (easy to
defend)
Twentieth century
United States
Economic scale, scientific
and
technical
leadership,
location, military forces and
alliances,
culture
universalistic
and
liberal
international regimes (soft
power)
Twenty-first century
United States
Technological
military
and
leadership,
economic
scale, soft power, hub of
transnational
communications
27
(Nye 2002: 13)
Understanding that merely resources will not necessarily determine whether a state is
powerful or not there ought to be other ways of viewing and determining power in
international relations. This can be to look at as a way of achieving one’s goals. The
most direct way of doing this is by forcing your will through by the use of military force
or the threat thereof. Another way to get what you want would be through utilizing a
state’s economic strength through threat of sanctions, bribery etc. The final and more
subtle way to get what you want and make other agents change their behavior is not to
coerce them but rather to convince them. Persuade them to think that your goal is
identical with their goal. This is the background of the division between hard power –
military and economy2 – and soft power which is the power of attraction so to speak.
(Mead 2004)
To see power as getting another agent to do what he/she/it otherwise would not have
done is a helpful way to explain both hard and soft power although it has one inherent
trapdoor. What if the target for this exercise of power – be it hard or soft – already
would have done what they are trying to be coerced or convinced to do? Then it is all of
a sudden very difficult to determine whether or not the attempt to wield the tools of hard
and soft power has been the deciding factor for reaching the result achieved and thereby
difficult to determine whether or not the wielder truly possess power over the other
agent. This is especially the case for soft power which in its nature is more subtle than
the tools of hard power. (Nye 2004: 2)
The three chessboards of power
Joseph S. Nye has made a model to understand the power relations of international
relations better while incorporating soft power. This model is to see the international
struggle of power as a game of chess – but played on three interrelated boards rather
2
The two sides of hard power have later been sought divided between sharp (military) and sticky
(economic) power by Walter Russell Mead in America’s Sticky Power – but this further distinction has
limited relevance to the topic of the thesis, and will therefore not be developed further.
28
than just one. The top board is the classical struggle between states for military
dominance and centers itself on security policy, alliance building, maintenance of a
balance of power etc. On the second board the game of economic growth is played
where issues can be anything within the financial and the economy policy realms – trade
agreements, anti-trust laws etc. The bottom board game of power is dedicated to a
multitude of international issues such as international crime, climate change or for
example the Olympics. It’s on this board soft power comes into play. Some political
actors fail to acknowledge other spheres than the classical power game of military
muscle though3 – a blunder that can have severe repercussions for the state’s standing in
the two other spheres. (Nye 2004: 4-5)
On table 1 seen below the tripartite division of the forms of power Joseph S. Nye
describes are illustrated keywords attached to each in relation to type of behavior,
primary currencies and government policies. Here it is seen how soft power really is
markedly different from the other two. Where military and economic power both utilize
very direct means to gain power, soft power uses more subtle and difficult to evaluate
means. Where the two types of hard power is signified by terms such as coercion,
deterrence, sanctions and threats the soft power keywords include attraction, values and
culture. The thing which is possibly most important to notice in the table the vast
amount of primary currencies soft power is spanning – values, culture, policies and
institutions – while the government policies are limited to diplomacy. This is an area
which will be explored more thoroughly later in this chapter.
Behaviors
Primary Currencies
Government
Policies
Military Power
coercion
threats
coercive diplomacy
deterrence
force
war
3
This point is illustrated well by the famous Joseph Stalin quote: “The Pope? How many divisions has he
got?” Stalin apparently only recognized military power here and not the vast amount of soft power held
by the papacy.
29
protection
Economic Power
alliance
inducement
payments
aid
coercion
sanctions
bribes
sanctions
Soft Power
attraction
values
public diplomacy
agenda setting
culture
bilateral
policies
multilateral
institutions
diplomacy
and
(Nye 2004: 31)
As mentioned above there is an interplay between the three chessboards of power.
Using hard power without analyzing possible impacts on its soft power can be very
counterproductive. Even if a state actor has significantly more military power than any
potential opponents, the unrestrictive use of force will possibly lead to mistrust,
alienation of allies and neutrals and in turn restrict the freedom of action for the state
actor in the long run to restore goodwill, avoid possible sanctions or boycotts and
ultimately avoid unfriendly alliance building to create a balance of power. The classic
illustration of some of these points is the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Another of
the many examples of a time where a state actor ignored the importance of soft power
which in turn led to repercussions in other areas was China after the Tiananmen Square
massacre in 1989, through which event China destroyed its power of attraction and was
hit hard in the economic realm through trade embargoes and boycotts. (Nye 2004: 2529)
Growing importance of soft power
As mentioned above, soft power has gradually increased its importance to states
struggle for power. This tendency is like to increase exponentially in the dawning global
information age where access to the most and widest channels of information will be a
determining factor for who will experience the fastest growth in soft power. The access
to the most and widest channels of information will not be the sole determining factor in
30
relations to growth in soft power though – two other general factors are also very
important. The first of these is that a state with an ideological background of their
dominant culture which is closest to the general predominant global norms and values
of a certain time will command a vaster soft power than a state with a dominant culture
far away from the global standard norms. Key values in the world of today include
terms such as pluralism and liberalism – it is therefore unlikely to see a state far away
from these values being successful in the realm of soft power as it will not seem very
attractive to the broad global public. If a state is not a genuine supporter of these values
at least it will have to pretend to support these if it has any interest and
acknowledgement of the importance of soft power. The second factor important to a
state in order to be successful in the realm of soft power is enhancing one’s credibility –
which can be done both through domestic as well as international actions. If a state
generally lives up to expectations and practice what it preaches its chances of gaining
soft power in the long run significantly increases. (Nye 2002: 69-73)
Soft power and public diplomacy
Now after having dealt with the presentation of the concept of soft power, its interplay
with the two forms of hard power and the growing importance of soft power in the
global age of information it has yet to be explored further from what sources soft power
actually stems and what direct tools can be conducive to the growth of soft power for a
state. It will be explored to what extent the state actually is able to directly control its
progress in soft power or lack thereof.
In the two main forms of hard power – military and economic – the state has a very
large direct impact on the development of power resources through diverse economic
policies, beneficial trade agreement, subsidies to reach technological breakthroughs or
development of more efficient military doctrines to give but a few examples. Soft power
is not as straightforward though as this encompasses fairly uncontrollable terms such as
culture and values. Much of any country’s soft power resources have little or nothing to
do with the state, be it anything from famous writers, painters, architects or singers,
natural beauty, important mass media or well known brands. Many of the sources of
soft power are therefore not determined by direct actions of the state apparatus but
rather of the people and the land they inhabit. (Mead 2004: 51)
31
With this being said it seems as if the state has little to do with how much soft power it
has which of course is not the case. Soft power is more than just a matter of which states
got lucky to have the most sides that attracts people from around the world. Soft power
has more to it than just culture, and it is a mistake to think of soft power as a direct
result of culture although culture is conducive to the growth of it. The two other main
sources of soft power include foreign policy and general political values. (Nye 2004:
11)
General political values and foreign policy can both be linked to governmental policies.
These policies can, as mentioned earlier, diminish the soft power of a state – for
example through committing atrocities or displaying arrogance towards the opinions of
others. The opposite can also be true though. Both domestic as well as foreign
government policies can help increase the country’s soft power if these policies help
increase its attractiveness to population segments. Examples of these could be
comparably generous contributions of development aid, a strong profile in peacekeeping
operations or a tolerant and fair treatment of domestic minorities. Also the more general
political values reflect on the growth or decline of soft power – a clean record of
democracy and rule of law will for example generally benefit a growth of soft power.
(Nye 2004: 13-15)
One of the seemingly most effective tools to increase soft power and which would
probably be a big mistake to overlook is public diplomacy. While public diplomacy is
not a primary source of soft power itself, it is one of the most direct tools a state has to
market itself for the foreign public. Even if a state tries to act in a way that would
increase its soft power the attempt might not be successful or there might be more
attention on negative actions the same state. Here the role of public diplomacy is to
attract focus on the positive sides of a country, not through mere propaganda which is
hopelessly obsolete but rather through dialogue. (Nye 2004: 105-107)
To sum up, the logic behind include the concept of soft power is that this exact concept
is vital to the success and in the end the very existence of public diplomacy. Soft power
is the raison d’être of public diplomacy because public diplomacy seeks to increase the
attractiveness of a country, signifying that attractiveness is important i.e. worth
32
competing over. If attractiveness is worth competing for it must contain a certain
amount of power – soft power.
Neorealism
The next theory to be presented and used in this thesis will be that of neorealism. In
theories of international relations, realism has the most longstanding tradition going
back to the likes of Thucydides and Machiavelli which first developed from the
observation of statecraft and diplomatic conduct. (Gilpin 1986: 307) The scope of this
presentation will be that of Neorealism though, which is – as the name implies – a
newer branch of realism which is more scientifically minded compared to its older
counterpart and has a wider scope than solely security policy as it also takes in aspects
such as economic factors or social theory. (Ashley 1986: 260-261)
The theorist mainly used in this section will be Kenneth N. Waltz (1924-) who is the
founder and most prominent proponent of the Neorealist approach. His works primarily
centres around nuclear deterrence and the causes of conflict within the international
system – a field he has been occupied with for the past five decades. He has been active
in teaching in Columbia University, Berkeley, Brandeis and Swarthmore as well as
visiting positions at London School of Economics, Harvard and Peking University. He
has controversially maintained his realist standpoint during his career and has put forth
controversial remarks regarding the positive impacts of the gradual proliferation of
nuclear weaponry. (Columbia University News)
In his earlier work Man, the State and War – a theoretical analysis originally from 1959
he examines the causes of war between states which forms the foundation of his entire
theoretical structure. He divides the main explanatory models of the causes of war into
three so called images – (a) human behavior, (b) the internal structure of states and (c)
international anarchy. A short introduction of these three explanatory models will
follow here, before the wider implications of this fundamental view will be explored.
(Waltz 2001: 1-15)
33
Human behavior
The first image Waltz presents in his work is human behavior – that is the thought that
the reason for the existence of conflict and war lies within human nature itself. The
reason springs from the evil and sometimes irrational behavior of human beings. Among
the supporters of this strand there are pessimists and optimists. The optimists believe
that it is possible to create a peaceful world by changing human behavior. Depending on
which theorist or philosopher this could be through education, religious awakening or
political indoctrination. The pessimists on the other hand are more skeptical as to how
much it is possible to create a peaceful world as it can be impossible to change human
nature itself. (Waltz 2001: 39-41)
Both the pessimists and especially the optimists are quite incorrect according to Waltz –
as they focus too much on individual itself instead of its setting. They disregard the
arena in which the actors are found and how big a role this is playing – whether it can
be the structure of states or the entire system of international relations. Interestingly
enough by optimists it is generally suggested that to change the individuals in order to
create a more harmonious world it would take some changing of the setting the
individual acts within – this in itself proves the human behaviorists wrong as they
themselves partly suggests that the causal effects are to be found in the system and not
in the agent as such. (Waltz 2001: 75-79)
State structure
The second image Waltz presents as the explanation for how conflict and war come into
existence in international relations is the internal structure of states. This means the
thought that the cause of conflict for example lies in the form of government a state has.
Some believe if all countries were democracies the cause of armed conflict would
disappear, some think the same about communist countries and still others has thought
enlightened absolutism has been the right way to go. The list can go on in infinity but
all share the same fundamental thought that it’s the wrong kind of governance which
causes the misery in the world.
34
Waltz stresses in his presentation of the second image that conflict still has existed
between democracies or between communist states contrary to the ideas of the
supporters of the second image. Furthermore it is underlined that even if the internal
structure of the state will have a big say in how the state is acting, it cannot be assessed
as if it wasn’t part of the international environment of states. It is, so to speak, a matter
of looking at the international environment more than at the internal structure of the
state itself which is the important factor in the search for the causes of conflict – this
will therefore lead us on to the third image in Waltz’ analysis. (Waltz 2001: 120-123)
International anarchy
The third image Waltz presents as the cause of conflict in international relations is
international anarchy. The international anarchy of states exists because there is no
world government or supreme entity which can control the behavior of state actors. This
entails states will do what’s in their power to ensure their interests such as survival and
increasing power – including the possible use of force. With the following decrease in
the common perception of security an anarchical environment will not end until a
superior power keep state actions in check. This is not too different from anarchy on the
national level which Waltz assumes will exist if there was no state to control the people.
In this view it is a common superior entity which will prevent the use of force between
actors. Where the actors are individuals it is the state where the actors are state it will be
a world government. (Waltz 2001: 159-161, 173)
As a concluding remark in Man, the State and War Waltz sums up his position as
follows:
“Each state pursues its own interests, however defined, in ways it judges
best. Force is a means of achieving the external ends of states because there exists no
consistent, reliable process of reconciling the conflicts of interest that inevitably arise
among similar units in a condition of anarchy. A foreign policy based on this image of
international relations is neither moral nor immoral, but embodies merely a reasoned
response to the world about us. The third image describes the framework of world
politics, but without the first and second images there can be no knowledge of the forces
35
that determine policy; the first and the second images describe the forces in world
politics, but without the third image it is impossible to assess their importance or
predict their results.” (Waltz 2001: 238)
So in this early work of Waltz he does not discard the first and second images
completely in favor of the third image. Rather the first and second images resemble the
contents which will require action and reaction among the states – whether this is the
nature of a head of state or the changes in the domestic political setup of a state. The
third image does constitute the machinery of the theory though and it is within this area
the real theoretical analysis comes into place. No matter what the ideas of a Napoleon or
a Bismarck are or what political party wins an election or brings about a revolution it is
the international context of anarchy and self-help which must be the real subject for
analysis.
The international political system
To clarify the neorealist view of international relations it will be helpful to use a few
graphs. The first one shows how most people view international relations/politics. Here
N1, 2, 3 represents what is happening in the states domestically which will create an
impact on its international behavior. The international behavior of the states is shown in
X1, 2, 3 which represents their external actions towards each other and how this
influence the other actors.
N1
X1
N2
X2
N3
X3
36
(Waltz 1986a: 95)
This graph is a good visualization of how a supporter of the above mentioned images 1
and 2 would view the world – seeing the main importance in for example either state
leaders or domestic structures.
N1
X1
N2
X2
X3
N3
X3
(Waltz 1986a: 96)
The second graph shows how Neorealists see international relations and exemplifies the
X3
third image. Here the main difference is the role of the international political system as
an entity in itself – shown in the graph as the big circle which affects the external
behavior of states as well as influencing the decision-making process domestically in
the states. It thereby gives the highest significance to the environment in which the
states act.
37
On anarchy
As the importance of the concept of anarchy in international relations has been
established, it is necessary to elaborate some further on this notion as well as its
opposite – hierarchy. Where anarchy is signified by the absence of government,
hierarchy is signified by the organized presence of government. Two points are
important to mention in relation to these concepts: (a) anarchy and hierarchy or the
outer points of a spectrum of organized order and there are a multitude of shades of gray
between the two extremes, and (b) anarchy does not necessarily entail complete chaos
and barbarism – just the absence of organized order.4
Since anarchy only means the absence of government and nothing more; claims stating
that international relations is signified by a modified anarchy due to the presence of
alliances, international organizations, civil society etc. will be rejected by the
neorealists. Even though these institutions are a reality, they will not alter the basic fact
that anarchy is the foundation of international relations – even if they seem to alter.
(Waltz 1986b: 113)
On socialization
A question still left unanswered in relation to why it is the third image which is so
determining for how international relations play out is how this system of international
anarchy not only was created but also remains unchanged. According to Neorealists
such as Waltz, the system will not change because rule-breakers will be punished
automatically and forced to conform or perish in the process. Even if the anarchical
international environment is as old as the state system itself it would not be unthinkable
that this could possibly change in time as some actors vanish throughout history and
others appear newly on the stage. To this Neorealism would argue: as the international
anarchy signifies a kill or get killed system, states trying to reinvent their approach to
their neighbors would ultimately suffer as they would not be prepared to defend
themselves properly against the states still trying to survive and increase their power.
4
i.e. government
38
The exception to this automatic prevention of rule-breakers is states which are outside
the competitive struggle for survival or dominance. This could for example be states
that are quite isolated from the communications with other states – whatever the reason
might be. Examples of this could be the United States in the 19th century or Japan in the
17th and 18th centuries. (Waltz 1986b: 128-129)
A way this unchanging anarchical system is explained further is through the tyranny of
small decisions. This means that the states will act to what is in their immediate best
interest in the short term even though the reality created through such action is not what
the state would prefer if it could choose. Waltz exemplifies this as follows:
“If one expects others to make a run on the bank, one’s prudent course is to run faster
than they do even while knowing that if few others run, the bank will remain solvent,
and if many run, it will fail. In such cases, pursuit of individual interest produces
collective results that nobody wants, yet individuals by behaving differently will hurt
themselves without altering outcomes.” (Waltz 1986b: 104)
The same thing is the case of the state acting in its environment amongst other states.
The state will make the decision which secures itself and is in its short term interest,
even if they know that the culture developing from these actions will not be in the best
interest of any of the states. Several rational decisions will add up and create one
irrational culture of state behavior. (Waltz 1986b: 105)
A recent illustrative example of this idea could be the Kyoto Protocol or other summits
and agreements aiming at reducing emissions to decrease global warming. Even if the
states know that it is in everyone’s best interest to secure the environment, they will be
very watchful about not losing any relative competitive edge compared to their fellow
states – primarily in the economic/industrial realm.
Constructivism
The third and final theory used in this thesis to shed light on the potential, roots and
possible evolvement of public diplomacy will be constructivism. The theory will be
presented and developed primarily on the basis of Alexander Wendt’s version of
39
constructivism as it was presented in his 1992 article Anarchy is what States Make of it:
The Social Construction of Power Politics and further developed in his book from 1999
titled Social Theory of International Politics.
Alexander Wendt is professor of international security at the Ohio State University and
specializes in social theory, theory of international relations and philosophy of social
science. He has published several books and articles on theory of international relations
during the 1990s and especially in the years after the turn of the century. His first
published article is Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of
Power Politics. (Mershon Center for International Security Studies)
The point of departure for the chapter will be the three different cultures which
according to Alexander Wendt’s constructivist approach can evolve in international
relations – these include the Hobbesian, Lockean and Kantian cultures. After the
presentation of these three main cultures states can exist in in international relations the
chapter will move on to explaining how states are becoming socialized and through this
establish or help maintaining a specific culture in international relations. It is this final
mechanism which is at the core of the theory and why this theory is completely different
from neorealism because it is open to change.
The Hobbesian culture
The first of the three different kinds of cultures the world of international relations can
socialize itself into is the Hobbesian culture. This is named after the English
philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who lived between 1588 and 1679 and who’s most
famous work probably is the Leviathan published in 1651. It was written during the
English Civil War as Hobbes was a royalist by heart; he was promoting a strong state
which should toil the otherwise uncontrollable egoism of human nature. Without a
strong government he thought a war of all against all would evolve. What especially
stands out is the memorable front page resembling the sovereign (the embodiment of the
state) containing the individuals of the population. (Martinich 2005: xiv-18)
40
The views of Hobbes on human nature and the devolvement of society during the lack
of presence of a centralized power can crudely be boiled down to the following quote
from Leviathan:
“… [I ]t is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them
all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every
man against every man.” (Hobbes 1994: 76)
Hobbes goes on to explain how this war of all against all can be ended through creating
a common power which can keep the peace:
“The only way to erect such a common power as may be able to defend them from
invasion of foreigners and the injuries of one another… is to confer all power and
strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by
plurality of voices, unto one will” (Hobbes 1994: 109)
According to Hobbes this is done only when every man relinquishes his individual
rights and freedom in exchange of protection from the sovereign as well as peace of
mind through knowing all other men likewise have relinquished their rights and
ambitions. When this is done Hobbes does not accept any form of reversing the oaths
41
people has pledged to the sovereign – with the sole exception of when the sovereign
does not prove able to provide safety and security from violence:
“…[T]hey that have already instituted a commonwealth, being thereby bound by
covenant to own the actions and judgments of one cannot lawfully make a new covenant
amongst themselves to be obedient to any other, in any thing whatsoever, without his
permission. And therefore, they that are subjects to a monarch cannot without his leave
cast off monarchy and return to the confusion of a disunited multitude, nor transfer
their person from him that beareth it to another man, or other assembly of men…”
(Hobbes 1994: 111)
When the ideas of Hobbes are taken from a domestic to an international level a quite
depressing world emerges which follows the lines of kill or get killed strategy in
international relations. This is the hardest case for constructivism to explain but has
nonetheless existed at several points in history. The main term to explain the
relationship between self and other would in this case be enemy. Alexander Wendt
explains the term enemy as follows:
“Enemies are constituted by representations of the Other as an actor who (1) does not
recognize the right of the Self to exist as an autonomous being, and therefore (2) will
not willingly limit its violence towards Self… this is a narrower definition than one
normally finds in IR, where “enemy” is often used to describe any violent antagonist”
(Wendt 2007: 260)
The reason Wendt utilizes a narrower definition of enemy than the norm is that it is
important not to confuse enemy with rival – which is the characteristic term of the
relationship between self and other in a Lockean culture. As the Hobbesian enemy does
not recognize their counterparts rights to exist and will therefore not limit itself. The
only things which can limit the aggression will be the eventual lack of capabilities to
destroy the other or the intervention of the Leviathan if there were a form of
international government in the world. Rivals of the Lockean culture on the other hand
recognize the right to exist of their counterparts but will at times seek to revise their
behavior or gain possession of their property – e.g. land, natural resources etc. The main
42
difference between the two is therefore the non-existence of self-restraint in the
Hobbesian culture. (Wendt 2007: 259-261)
The Lockean culture
The second potential culture of international relations which Alexander Wendt describes
is based on the thoughts of the English philosopher and contemporary of Thomas
Hobbes - namely John Locke. Locke lived from 1632 to 1704 and was one of the major
British empiricists and thus worked a lot with human understanding and experience for
which he is most famous. He also delved into political philosophy with his Two
Treatises of Civil Government from 1689. (Locke 1980: vii)
Locke was strongly influenced by Hobbes but there were several areas where he
departed completely from the position of Hobbes. The two most striking examples are
the view of human nature and the right to revolution against an illegitimate government.
The Lockean culture as used by Alexander Wendt in his constructivist approach is
characterized by the live and let live approach instead of the Hobbesian kill or get killed.
The view of the other is in this culture as a rival and not as an enemy. There is in
general a mutual acknowledgement between states of their rights to exists. This can for
example be seen since the Westphalian system came into being in 1648, since when the
death rate of states has been very small compared to earlier times – this even goes for
the tiniest states. Even if a mutual recognition of states’ rights to exist and sovereignty
is in place, it doesn’t mean the use of violence has disappeared. There will still be
disputes over for example territory and resources – even to the extent of leading to war.
But as mentioned above, the wars will be limited wars mainly aimed at revising borders
or gaining concessions from the losing part and not as a struggle of life and death
between the states.
The effect of a Lockean culture is not limited to how and how often wars are waged.
Since the sovereignty of other states are generally respected and wars become less
frequent, states no longer have to focus solely on security and short term gains but can –
or have to, in order to keep up with their rivals – focus on longer term goals in a wider
range of areas. Furthermore the mutual recognition of sovereignty and the increased
43
focus on longer term goals give way to a degree of trust between allies. (Wendt 2007:
279-282)
Since the Westphalian Peace in 1648 and partly since the Peace of Augsburg hundred
years before that, the Lockean culture has been the one signifying the international
relations at least at regional levels until the decolonization when the culture become
more entrenched and all-embracing.
The question is then how this culture came in to being and how it became so entrenched
that it persisted major ‘rule-breakers’ such as Napoleon or Hitler. The root of the culture
has to be found in coercion – after the protracted Thirty Years War which brought
nothing but misery and poverty in itself it became in the interest of the involved great
powers and the German principalities to respect each other’s sovereignty. As this was a
newly introduced norm it had to be effectuated by coercion in the beginning. An
example could be England and the Netherlands’ intervention in the conflicts between
Denmark-Norway and Sweden, where the latter was prevented in annexing the first.
(Wendt 2007: 286)
After this first phase of coerced Lockean culture the culture becomes more entrenched
as a norm. This means that the state-actors are beginning to get used to that it is
expected they respect other states’ sovereignty – or at least seemingly respect. By
recognizing other’s sovereignty can bring them benefits while not doing so can bring
them harm. In other words the states will respect each others’ sovereignty as long as
they believe it’s in their interest to do so.
The third and final step of an entrenched Lockean culture is when the recognition of
others’ sovereignty becomes such a habit and value in itself that the states will
automatically adhere to the norm even if it might not be in their direct interest to do so.
(Wendt 2007: 287-289)
The Kantian culture
The last of the three cultures of international relations Alexander Wendt outlines is that
of the Kantian culture which is based on the ideas of Prussian philosopher Immanuel
44
Kant (1724-1804) in his treatise Perpetual Peace. Where the Hobbesian culture was
based on enmity and the Lockean culture based on rivalry – the Kantian culture operates
with the concept of friendship.
Perpetual Peace is a short pamphlet which contains six preliminary and three definitive
articles which would, if followed, transform international relations completely. It is one
of the most essential works of cosmopolitanism in history although it is quite utopian.
The six preliminary articles are:
“1: No Treaty of Peace Shall Be Held Valid in Which There Is Tacitly Reserved Matter
for a Future War…
2: No Independent States, Large or Small, Shall Come under the Dominion of Another
State by Inheritance, Exchange, Purchase, or Donation…
3: Standing Armies (miles perpetuus) Shall in Time Be Totally Abolished…
4: National Debts Shall Not Be Contracted with a View to the External Friction of
States…
5: No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another
State…
6: No State Shall, during War, Permit Such Acts of Hostility Which Would Make
Mutual Confidence in the Subsequent Peace Impossible: Such Are the Employment of
Assassins (percussores), Poisoners (venefici), Breach of Capitulation, and Incitement to
Treason (perduellio) in the Opposing State” (Kant 2007: 7-11)
And the three definitive articles are:
“1: The Civil Constitution of Every State Should Be Republican
2: The Law of Nations Shall be Founded on a Federation of Free States
3: The Law of World Citizenship Shall Be Limited to Conditions of Universal
Hospitality” (Kant 2007: 13-21)
45
In Kant’s vision of a peaceful world a few things stand out. Most importantly from the
theoretical point of view are the preliminary articles which try to prevent suspicion or
animosity between states such as article 1 or 6. This view in itself entails that there is a
possibility to change the way states interact and view each other – it doesn’t have to be
an anarchical society for eternity. This particular point also explains why Wendt has
found Kant’s thoughts intriguing enough to incorporate them into his theoretical
framework. Two other curious points in Kant’s Perpetual Peace is that he goes to great
lengths to explain the differences between a republican and a democratic form of
government as he is quite skeptical of democracy but supports the division of power and
meritocracy. Not surprisingly he strongly recommends that philosophers should be
taken in on counsel in any government decision. In his view of a peaceful future he
doesn’t envision a world government as he thinks it will be too lax and lose its
legislative dynamics. On the other hand he advocates a loose federation of states which
guarantees safety for all people traveling among them – as can be seen in the definitive
articles 2 and 3.
Turning to Wendt’s version of Kant’s ideas and the Kantian culture again - an example
which is difficult to explain within the logic of neither the Lockean nor the Hobbesian
cultures is the close cooperation seen between the NATO countries. In a Hobbesian
culture this would never have happened whereas in the Lockean culture it could have
been explainable as long as the Warsaw Pact and the USSR still existed. After the fall of
the USSR and the disappearance of a perceived common enemy of the NATO member
states, rivalry between the member states should have reignited and the alliance slowly
dissolved. Instead the alliance has persisted and there are still areas with close
cooperation between member states which in instances goes beyond national egoism.
(Wendt 2007: 297)
The term friendship which this culture involves is signified by two rules – namely that
conflicts or disputes will be resolved without war or threat of war and they will both
engage in a conflict if one of the two is attacked – i.e. work as a team. This can
resemble an alliance but, in a friendship the notion of war between the friends are
unthinkable in an alliance the notion of war is only unthinkable as long as the alliance
exists – in other words a kind of friendship limited by time. Furthermore it is important
46
to note that the term friendship in the Kantian culture is regarding security areas only –
friends can still compete economically for example. Examples of friendships in
international relations in our contemporary world could be the special relationship
between USA and UK or between the Nordic states. The relations between these
countries are characterized by it being inconceivable for a state of war to evolve.
(Wendt 2007: 299)
Using the notion of friendship in international relations must also signify a degree of
selflessness since state A might help its friend state B with a problem even if this
doesn’t directly benefit state A. If a state is not necessarily egoistic and selfish and a
degree of trust can evolve between states it is a possibility to escape the international
anarchy characterizing Hobbesian and Lockean ideas – if not on a global level then on a
regional level. Alexander Wendt gives the example of the Unites States and Canada.
Even if these two neighboring countries have several disputes over for example fishing
rights and the United States is much more powerful than its northern neighbor it would
never consider using force to its own benefit towards Canada. The same situation could
be seen within for example the European Union. A culture has developed here which
has made military power obsolete within the sphere.
Furthermore it’s worth mentioning that the constructivism deviates from for example
neorealism in the approach to the difference between anarchy and hierarchy. Where the
neorealist sees anarchy as a result of the absence of a centralized authority – i.e. a
Hobbesian leviathan or world government – the constructivist doesn’t necessarily see
anarchy being the necessary product of the absence of a centralized authority. If the
Kantian culture develops sufficiently amongst a community of states on a global or
regional level, it is possible for anarchy to vanish in a decentralized arena. (Wendt 2007:
306-308)
An important aspect when looking at the contents of the Kantian culture in international
relations is looking at how this culture can develop and eventually become entrenched.
It is some conundrum how the former enemies of the Hobbesian world or rivals in the
Lockean world can become friendly towards each other. This will certainly not happen
from one day to the other but will be a long process which can be split up in three major
phases. The first phase would be an extension of what can be seen in a Lockean culture
47
– if the prevention from killing other states in time increases to become a norm of not
attacking the foundation for the Kantian culture is in place – where coercion maintains
the nonviolence. From here it can develop with the norms becoming more entrenched
and cooperation increases. You will in this second phase see states cooperating and
seemingly act selflessly – this will not be genuine though. The norms are here to act
friendly, and as this is the expected way of communication the state is acting this way
because it knows this is how it achieves its goals and avoids becoming the victim of
sanctions. The idea behind the third and final phase is that the actions will eventually
become more genuine and less fundamentally based on egoism. (Wendt 2007: 303-306)
The socialization of international relations
After having explored the different cultures which can develop in international relations
and how they can become entrenched, it is time to discover the most important aspect of
the constructivist theory – the ability of states to learn and affect one another. The core
of constructivism is that interests and identities are created and are continuously
modified through interactions with others.
Wendt tries to explain this through his example of Alter and Ego meeting each other for
the first time. Both are focused on survival and have material force to try to back up that
interest – but apart from this they haven’t created any common interests or expectations.
At this first meeting every single gesture and movement is important to signal
peacefulness, animosity or outright threatening behavior. As soon as Alter decides to act
one way, Ego will begin to interpret that action and respond to this behavior. Ego might
misinterpret Alter’s intentions and act unaccordingly to this, causing Alter to change its
stance. In any event, a common history is starting to write itself for the two and each of
them will begin developing opinions of the other and also develop behavioral patterns in
relation to other entities in general based on its recent experiences. The understandings
and expectations of others will therefore be the major part of the formation of the
actor’s interests and identities. (Wendt 1992: 404-407)
Below is a figure showing the formation of states identities and interests through
interaction:
48
State A with identities and
interests
(1) Stimulus requring
action
(2)State’s A definition of
the situation
Intersubjective understandings
and expectations possessed by
and constitutive of A and B
(3) State A’s action
(4) State’s B
interpretation of A’s
action and B’s own
definition of the
situation
State B with identities and
interests
(5) State’s B’s action
As seen in the figure the process of state socialization is seen in a limited arena of only
two states – the formation of state identities and interests are here visually explained. A
state encounters an issue and begins analyzing it from the perspective of its previous
experience (i.e. it’s previously created identities and interests) and decides on what it
deems to be an appropriate action. Other states will begin analyzing this action and will
try to figure out what reaction it might require and acts upon it – and so it continues.
These state actions all add up to the common history of the states and are the
fundamental building blocks of the mutual expectations of each other’s actions and in
turn formation of own identity and interest.
Summary
The constructivist theory is distinguished from the other theories presented and utilized
in this thesis as more dynamic and somewhat more unpredictable than the others.
49
Instead of explaining behavior in international relations as static – as in neorealism – or
following more predictable rules – such as in neoliberalism – constructivism is more
open-ended. What matters is the interaction between the actors and their shared history.
A history of violence and a high death rate among states will result in a justified
paranoia amongst them and a devolvement into a Hobbesian culture of kill or be killed,
while a history of cooperation and mutual respect of sovereignty can lead to a Lockean
or eventually even a Kantian culture. Wendt therefore see the anarchy of international
relations as a product of the state socialization and therefore possible to change – or as
his article is titled: “Anarchy is what states make of it” (Wendt 1993: 391)
Analysis
In this chapter it will be attempted to provide an analysis of the topic of the thesis in
order to reach a conclusion and as clear an answer for the problem formulation as
possible. The analytical chapter will be divided in four main sections. The first section
will attempt to analyse the problem through the application of the soft power theory, the
second section from the perspective of neorealism and the third from the perspective of
constructivism. In the fourth section the findings of the three preceding sections will be
held up against each other and discussed. This final analytical discussion will in the end
provide a basis for the final conclusion of the thesis.
Application of soft power
This chapter seeks to provide an explanatory model for the problem formulation
through the lens of soft power. As the problem formulation is divided in to three steps
so will this chapter. At first it will be explored why ministries of foreign affairs have
made moves to reinvent themselves through the introduction of rather new concepts
such as public diplomacy, nation branding and cultural diplomacy. After this it will be
explored whether or not these new approaches signify a more efficient way of reaching
foreign policy goals. Finally it will be explored whether this constitutes a breakthrough
in international relations from the viewpoint of soft power theory.
50
New ways of conducting diplomacy
When considering why these new communicative and open approaches to conducting
diplomacy towards a wider group than traditional diplomacy it is necessary to look at
the basic motivations of the states behind the diplomacy. Throughout time the areas of
competition between states have been moving from the core hard power areas of
economic and military affairs to increasingly include soft power areas as well – this has
to especially be seen in the light of wars generally has become too destructive.
If it is becoming more difficult to coerce other states in to doing what you want then it
is possible to utilize the more subtle approach to power mentioned in the theoretical
section – namely to persuade them to think that your goal is identical with their goal.
Public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy can then be seen as tools of increasing other
publics understanding and sympathy of one’s cause and thereby in turn make these
people pressure there governments to act favourable towards the sending state – or at
least not hostile. As mentioned in the theoretical presentation of soft power, it is
necessary for a government to increase its credibility to increase its soft power and that
is exactly the same case as with public diplomacy and how public diplomacy is
distinguishable from its cousin propaganda. The same goes for the necessity to listen to
what others has to say and be focused on the dialogue instead of just the monologue. All
these points suggest that the new approaches to conducting diplomacy have come in
place because of the recognition of the value of soft power.
A final note to this area is why the initiatives primarily have been introduced in Europe
and North America. It could likely be because there are directed more resources in to
trying out new approaches in these countries’ ministries of foreign affairs but there
could also be another cause of this. As mentioned in the theoretical presentation of soft
power that states which are closer to the predominant values and ideologies in the world
will command a vaster soft power than countries further away from the predominant
ideologies. Since the end of the Cold War these values has generally been dictated by
the United States – why it is namely this and fairly similar countries which focus on
these new approaches to conducting foreign relations.
51
More efficient in reaching foreign policy goals
In accordance with the theory of soft power the increased focus on public diplomacy
can signify a more efficient way of reaching foreign policy goals assuming that these
goals are fairly standard ones such as improving one’s economy, international standing
and political positioning. As mentioned in the theoretical chapter these initiatives cannot
stand alone as it is just one part of a bigger soft power picture and one could fear that
this is not always realized. Complementary areas to increase soft power could include
generous contributions of development aid, strong profile in peacekeeping operations or
a tolerant and fair treatment of domestic minorities. Areas such as these will more often
be guided by either domestic or hard power (economic) concerns rather than soft power
concerns – development aid will be cut due to budget concerns, domestic minorities will
experience high levels of intolerance in order to increase support amongst more
nationalist minded segments of the electorate etc. This can easily result in public
diplomacy not being able to achieve results to its fullest potential as it does not receive
the backing it needs in other areas.
Furthermore the concept of nation branding could pose a problem to the success of
public diplomacy. As nation branding is quite focused on commercial principles and has
the attention of the private sector its primary goal is to benefit the area of economic
power – i.e. the second chessboard. This can be unfortunate for the possibilities for
success in the area of public diplomacy. The reason for this is that nation branding in
itself does not have to follow the complete truth – rather it is about creating images and
artificially awaken emotional attachments to a location. In this way it diverges from one
of the basic principles of soft power and public diplomacy – namely to stick to the truth
and increase credibility. In this way the concept of nation branding is counter productive
to public diplomacy and thereby to increase soft power.
Breakthrough in international relations
As it has been established that public diplomacy cannot reach its potential due to other
factors such as remaining hard power concerns, domestic concerns and the counter
productive element of nation branding, the introduction of public diplomacy does not
52
constitute a breakthrough in the basic principles in international relations – it rather
seems like an initiative taken with all the best intentions but to limited effect.
If it is assumed that public diplomacy did not have these current hindrances – would it
then plausibly signify a change in the basic principles of international relations? I.e. if
all the necessary support was in place for the public diplomacy efforts and the main
attention of foreign relations policy was on soft power. In a way it a change would be
plausible in that major armed conflict has grown increasingly rare and obsolete but then
again the focus on soft power is basically just taking the international competition to
another chessboard and states will remain as competitive as always. The introduction of
public diplomacy would therefore signify yet another tool of power rather than a way to
increase cooperation.
Summary
When viewing public diplomacy through the lens of the theory of soft power it explains
that public diplomacy has come to existence because the state actors see soft power as
real power and therefore worthwhile competing over. But as public diplomacy often
will stand alone without the necessary support of other policy areas, it does not at the
moment signify a more efficient means of reaching foreign policy goals or constitute a
fundamental breakthrough in international relations.
If public diplomacy at one time receives the necessary backing of other areas and focus
on soft power will rise to prominence alongside economic, domestic and military
concerns it can potentially be a very important competitive tool of power between
states. It is still unlikely though that there will be any significant change in the basic
principles of international relations.
Application of neorealism
This chapter will aim at analyzing the topic of interest from the perspective of
neorealism in order to reach an attempt of an answer for the problem formulation. The
structure of this chapter will be similar to that of the preceding one with one exception.
53
As the analysis at hand will reach a quite different conclusion than the one reached
previously the subchapters, of whether or not the new approaches to diplomacy are
more efficient at reaching foreign policy goals and whether the concepts signify a
fundamental change in international relations, will be merged. After the main analytical
sections of the chapter there will be a short summary of the conclusions reached through
the analysis from the neorealist perspective.
New ways of conducting diplomacy
From the neorealist perspective the rise of concepts such as public diplomacy is quite
puzzling at best and utterly nonsense at worst. As the only entity which truly matters in
international relations is the state and the state will act rationally and not change its
basic behavioural patterns as long as there is no world government in place the rise of
public diplomacy is a mistake. The assumption that by creating close relations between
one’s own population and foreign populations or by seeming more open to dialogue will
change other states behaviour towards oneself is a miscalculation as state behaviour will
never change due to the anarchic conditions states exist under.
Since it is a fact that public diplomacy initiatives has been established in a wide range
of countries the reason must lie in the wrong perception that the reason for conflict lies
in the evilness of man and the unpredictable behaviour of the individuals in power – i.e.
the first image. In other words the public diplomacy initiatives has been started because
it is hoped that one can directly or indirectly affect the future leaders of a country to
have a good impression of one’s own country and thereby increasing the security of that
country because it will have postponed possible conflict with this state.
More efficient in reaching foreign policy goals
Following the argument of the preceding paragraph the rise of public diplomacy does
not signify a more efficient way of reaching foreign policy goals as the basic interests of
a state is static and communication with foreign publics will not to any significant
extent result in increased security for the sending state rather it will likely be a waste of
54
resources giving a competitive edge to the states not wasting funds on these illconceived concepts.
Regarding nation branding though, this can be a good initiative as such from the
viewpoint of neorealism in that it can affect a state’s economic strength positively and
thereby increasing its power and security. Nation branding as such does not really have
anything significant to do with international relations as such though since it only is of
importance as an export-enhancing initiative and won’t change the approach towards
other states fundamentally.
Since the concepts are not really of any significant use in the competition between states
or affecting the relationship between states in any real way, the rise of public diplomacy
does not constitute any fundamental change in the way international relations are taking
place.
Summary
Since neorealism view state behaviour as rational and the international environment as
anarchical and static, the new concepts of public diplomacy does not have any relevance
to international relations at all and has probably arisen to prominence lately by the
mistake of seeing human behaviour as the source of conflict and therefore the way to
limit direct conflict is to create beneficial views of one’s state among foreign publics.
Even though nation branding can be seen as beneficial indirectly to a state’s security by
proposing a way to increase the economic strength of a state it does not have anything
to do with international relations as such but is merely an advanced advertisement
campaign.
Application of constructivism
Like the two previous chapters, this chapter will aim at providing an explanatory model
in order to give some answers in relation to the problem formulation. It will do this
through the application of constructivism as it was presented in the corresponding
theoretical chapter. This current chapter will generally be structured in the same way as
the preceding two chapters by exploring the three levels of the problem formulation one
at a time. First it will look in to why the communicative approaches to diplomacy has
55
arisen to prominence the last years followed by an investigation on whether it can
signify a more efficient way of reaching foreign policy goals from a theoretical
approach. Finally it will be explored whether or not this can be deemed as constituting a
significant breakthrough in the way international relations generally are conducted.
After this chapter the final analysis and conclusion of the thesis will follow.
New ways of conducting diplomacy
From the constructivist point of view the reason why public diplomacy and other
communicative approaches to conducting diplomacy has arisen can be manifold as it is
a quite flexible theory so to speak – international relations is what states make of it after
all. One interpretation can be developed by looking at the general world history since
World War II. In World War two the dominant culture must be deemed to have been a
Hobbesian culture – a kill or be killed culture. This was reverted back to a Lockean
culture as the Allies or the status quo powers won the war. During the post-war period
and the Cold War the Lockean culture became increasingly entrenched – this was partly
due to coercion, as the theory proscribes, since it became too costly to engage in war
partly due to the nuclear bomb. Major wars were rare, borders hardly moved and a quite
significant amount of respect for sovereignty of states – at least for the most part. Even
as the major rivalry in the world between the United States and the Soviet Union ended
with the Cold War alliances persisted and grew closer even though an increased
competition should have been expected. As this did not happen the Lockean culture
must be deemed to have reached one of its most entrenched phases. Since the culture is
that entrenched there is no serious fear that the status quo should not be maintained and
it is becoming increasingly desirable to increase dialogue and understanding between
countries.
More efficient in reaching foreign policy goals
As the Lockean culture can be deemed to have reached its most entrenched phase it
gives room to sew the seeds of friendship between peoples and states among the world.
So when seeing whether a state becomes more efficient at reaching its foreign policy
goals through the use of public diplomacy or not, this might not be the right question to
ask in this relation. If the Lockean culture has reached its final stages and has begun to
56
approach other countries through increased dialogue, openness and honesty, this can
signify the move from a Lockean to a Kantian culture. If the culture of international
relations are changing from a Lockean to a Kantian it would entail a change of foreign
policy goals which in turn makes the question obsolete in itself.
The emergence of public diplomacy can therefore more be seen as a tool to increase
socialization between states with foreign publics as the medium. By affecting foreign
publics through openness, sincerity and dialogue these will in turn affect their
governments increasing the prospects of possible friendship between the two states in
question.
Breakthrough in international relations
If the culture of international relations are changing from Lockean to Kantian partly due
to the effects of public diplomacy this signifies an enormous potential change in the
fundamental ways international relations are taking place. The reason for this is that it
changes how states are socialized – from seeing each other as rivals they will begin to
see each other as friends instead. This can in turn make room for a previously unheard
of degree of cooperation in international relations. In the early stages after a new culture
has been introduced in international relations, it will be severely fragile though. The
slightest break of trust between the former rivals turned friends could potentially revert
the culture back – at least until it has become more entrenched. In short, the rise to
prominence of public diplomacy does not in itself signify a big fundamental change in
the conduct of international relations but rather plays an important part in this potential
change.
Summary
Since constructivism is a very flexible theory, several different scenarios could be
plausible according to the theory. The explanation mentioned here have been chosen as
it resonates well with the theory as presented in the theoretical chapter as well as
providing a distinct third way – meaning that it is quite different from the explanatory
model used both in the chapter of soft power and of neorealism. Throughout the past
57
sixty years the Lockean culture has grown increasingly entrenched as the primary
culture of international relations. There have been few wars due to the costly nature of it
after the invention of the nuclear bomb, a high degree of respect for sovereignty and
maintenance of the status quo. This has especially been true for the post-Cold War era
and can be deemed as signifying a highly entrenched Lockean culture.
The rise of public diplomacy can therefore be interpreted as a sign that the culture of
international relations are on the verge of a change from the Lockean to the Kantian
culture with an increased focus on communication, openness and dialogue – key tools to
socialize the states into seeing each other as friends rather than rivals.
Conclusion
In this chapter the final conclusion for the problem formulation will be sought. This will
be done through a critique of the previous three analytical chapters which took their
basis in soft power, neorealism and constructivism.
In relation to the theory and analytical chapter of neorealism, this theory is in its very
nature quite conservative and static. Because of its firm view that the basic ways states
are relating to one another never changes – there will always be anarchy and states will
always secure themselves, even if it means attacking others. This leaves no room for
analysis of concepts like public diplomacy or nation branding, but it rather dismisses
these outright. Furthermore a puzzling aspect to this theory is that if the state is a
rational actor and public diplomacy initiatives equals nonsense – how can a state then
rationally choose to organize and fund significant public diplomacy strategies.
As for the analytical approach of constructivism – this theoretical approach leaves
plenty of room to speculate about the causes and effects of public diplomacy strategies.
As it potentially attributes quite a significant amount of importance to public diplomacy
initiatives, it thereby also makes it more understandable why so much time, effort and
resources are channelled into public diplomacy, nation branding and cultural diplomacy
initiatives. Furthermore it leaves open room for the most positive explanation of why
these public diplomacy initiatives have been initialized around the world. This is
58
explained in the analytical chapter as because there is a change of culture taking place
or about to change place in the international environment which will affect how states
are reacting towards one another.
One of the more problematic areas of the explanatory model this theory offers is also
why it is ultimately rejected as usable in achieving a satisfactory answer to the problem
formulation is that the theory is too open-ended. Basically the theory leaves room to
explain any and all state behaviour towards other states. Some firm standpoints of the
theory would make it easier to utilize efficiently. As the theory stands now, the only
firm standpoint it has is that international relations is what states make of it. As it
stands, state actions and behaviour is completely dependable on how states are
socialized towards one another in the international environment. If the international
environment does not see armed conflict for a significant amount of time the states
inhabiting this environment will ultimately stop even considering armed conflict in the
future.
With regards to the theory of soft power and its analytical approach to the present
problems it occupies a middle-ground between the stance taken by the constructivist
approach and the stance taken by the neorealist approach. The explanatory model used
with this theory attributes a certain amount of potential towards the public diplomacy
initiatives seen around the world. Even though attributes much significance to what the
initiatives are aimed at achieving it promotes some scepticism towards whether it will
succeed or not. The reason for this scepticism is that presently it seems like most states
are prioritizing other areas before considering soft power – namely economic, military
or domestic issues. As the theory of soft power estimates that it is necessary to act on a
large front in order for soft power to rise to any significance – even if it means taking
unwise decisions in relation to economic growth or domestic support. A point of interest
is especially with regards to nation branding. As nation branding is a close cousin of
public diplomacy one would assume that they would complement each other but that is
not the case as it was discovered. Rather the false or idealized images promoted through
nation branding campaigns diverts quite a bit from several of the basic principles of
public diplomacy – namely to promote openness, dialogue and most importantly
increase credibility and honesty.
59
Finally, to address the problem formulation with some concluding remarks – the reasons
why public diplomacy initiatives has gained prominence in the last years can be
attributed to an increased recognition of soft power. It is currently not deemed to be of
much importance though, as the area still has a secondary priority despite praising
words from ministries of foreign affairs around the world. Since it is only a secondary
priority and does not receive the kind of all round support it needs, it is not likely to
foreign policy goals more easily attainable. In relation to the last part of the problem
formulation – whether or not the focus on public diplomacy constitutes a breakthrough
in international relations – the answer must be no. It might one time play a primary role
of international relations but it will not change the basic principles states are operating
under internationally.
60
Bibliography
Andreasen, U. (2007) Diplomati og Globalisering – En introduktion til Public Diplomacy,
Museum Tusculanums Forlag Københavns Universitet: Copenhagen
Arndt, R.T. (2005) The First Resort of Kings: American Cultural Diplomacy in the Twentieth
Century, Potomac Books: Washington D.C.
Ashley, R.K. (1986) The Poverty of Neorealism, Neorealism and its Critics, Robert O. Keohane
(ed.) pp. 255-300, Columbia University Press: New York
Berridge, G.R., Maurice Keens-Soper and T.G. Otte (2001) Diplomatic Theory from
Machiavelli to Kissinger, Palgrave: New York
Berridge, G.R. (2005) Diplomacy – Theory and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan: New York
Bull, H. (2002) The Anarchical Society – A Study of Order in World Politics, Palgrave: New
York
Cerny, P.G. (2007) Paradoxes of the Competition State: The Dynamics of Political
Globalization, Government and Opposition vol. 32 issue 2, pp. 251-274
Columbia University News, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/00/03/kennethWaltz.html,
[accessed on 1st March 2009]
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, www.um.dk/en/menu/AboutUS/Organisation/
OrganisationChart/UKKEOrganigram.htm, [accessed 16th November 2008]
Gilpin, R.G. (1986) The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism, Neorealism and its
Critics, Robert O. Keohane (ed.) pp. 301-321, Columbia University Press: New York
van Ham, P. (2002) Branding Territory: Inside the Wonderful Worlds of PR and IR Theory,
Millennium – Journal of International Studies 2002, 31 pp. 249-269
van Ham, P. (2003)War, Lies, and Videotape: Public Diplomacy and the USA’s War on
Terrorism, Security Dialogue vol. 34, no. 4 pp. 427-444
van Ham, P. (2004) The Rise of the Brand State – The Postmodern Politics of Image and
Reputation, Foreign Affairs vol. 80 no. 5 pp. 2-6
Harvard – Kennedy School, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/josephnye, [accessed 16th March 2009]
Hobbes, T. (1994) Leviathan, Hackett Publishing Company: Indianapolis/Cambridge
Hocking, B. (2007) Rethinking the ‘New’ Public Diplomacy, The New Public Diplomacy – Soft
Power in International Relations, Jan Melissen (ed.) pp. 28-46, Palgrave Macmillan: London
Hoffman, D. (2002) Beyond Public Diplomacy, Foreign Affairs Mar/Apr 2002 vol. 81 issue 2,
pp. 83-95
61
Kant, I. (2007) Perpetual Peace, Filiquarian Publishing, LLC: United Kingdom
Lenczowski, J. (2007) Keep the purpose clear, The Public Diplomacy Reader, J. M. Waller
(ed.), The Institute of World Politics Press: Washington pp. 196-197
Leonard, M. (2002) Public Diplomacy, The Foreign Policy Centre: London
Leonard, M. (2002b) Diplomacy by Other Means, Foreign Policy September/October 132, pp.
48-56
Locke, J. (1980) Second Treatise of Government, Hackett Publishing Company:
Indianapolis/Cambridge
Martinich, A.P. (2005) Hobbes, Routledge: New York
Mead, W.R. (2004) America’s Sticky Power, Foreign Policy, March/April 2004, no. 6 pp. 46-53
Melissen, J. (2007) Between Theory and Practice, The New Public Diplomacy – Soft Power in
International Relations, Jan Melissen (ed.) pp. 3-27, Palgrave Macmillan: London
Mershon Center for International Security Studies,
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/30090/1/Wendt%20Alexander%20Mershon%
20Bio%202006-07.pdf [accessed 16th March 2009]
Nye, J.S. (1991) Bound to Lead – the changing nature of American power, Basic Books: United
States
Nye, J.S. (2004) Soft Power – the means to success in world politics, Public Affairs: New York
Nye, J.S. (2002) The Paradox of American Power – why the world’s only superpower can’t go
it alone, Oxford University Press: Oxford
Olins, W. (2007) Making a National Brand, The New Public Diplomacy – Soft Power in
International Relations, Jan Melissen (ed.) pp. 169-179, Palgrave Macmillan: London
Riordan, S. (2007) Dialogue-based Public Diplomacy, The New Public Diplomacy – Soft
Power in International Relations, Jan Melissen (ed.) pp. 180-195, Palgrave Macmillan: London
Ross, C. (2002) Public Diplomacy Comes of Age, The Washington Quarterly, spring 2002, 25:2,
pp. 75-83
Ross, C. (2003) Pillars of Public Diplomacy – Grappling with International Public Opinion,
Harvard International Review, summer 2003 pp. 22-27
Schneider, C.P. (2007) Culture Communicates: US Diplomacy That Works, The New Public
Diplomacy – Soft Power in International Relations, Jan Melissen (ed.) pp. 147-168, Palgrave
Macmillan: London
U.S. Department of State (2005) Cultural Diplomacy – the Linchpin of Public Diplomacy,
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/54374.pdf [accessed 2nd of February 2009]
62
Waltz, K.N. (1986a) Political Structures, Neorealism and its Critics, Robert O. Keohane (ed.)
pp. 70-97, Columbia University Press: New York
Waltz, K.N. (1986b) Anarchic Orders and Balancing of Power, Neorealism and its Critics,
Robert O. Keohane (ed.) pp. 98-130, Columbia University Press: New York
Waltz, K.N. (2001) Man, the State and War – a theoretical analysis, Columbia University
Press: New York
Wendt, A. (1992) Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics,
International Organization 46, 2, Spring 1992 pp. 391-425, World Peace Foundation and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Wendt, A. (2007) Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge
63
Abstract of “The New Era of Diplomacy: The Effects of Public
Diplomacy, Nation Branding and Cultural Diplomacy”
The topic on which the thesis is centered is on concepts of public diplomacy, nation branding
and cultural diplomacy – especially public diplomacy is in focus. The aim of the thesis is why
these concepts has rised in prominence amongst several ministries of foreign affairs in Europe
and North America lately and has become an integrated part of their diplomatic strategy.
Furthermore it seeks to explore whether these concepts will contribute to an increased
efficiency in reaching foreign policy goals and if they signify a fundamental change in the way
international relations are viewed. The first parts of the thesis gives a short outline of the
history of traditional diplomacy, followed by a presentation of public diplomacy, nation
branding and cultural diplomacy. The biggest significance is given to the presentation of public
diplomacy as it is the most analytically interesting concept in relation to the problem
formulation.
These questions are explored from the viewpoint of three theories namely Joseph S. Nye’s
theory of soft power, Kenneth Waltz’ view of neorealism and Alexander Wendt’s version of
constructivism. Where the analysis from the neorealist perspective dismisses the importance
of public diplomacy and partly nation branding the constructivist are more enthusiastic in its
approach – accepting the possibility of fundamental change in international relations, partly
due to the significance of public diplomacy. The theory of soft power occupies a middle-ground
between the other two theories and is cautiously optimistic of public diplomacy but very
sceptical towards nation branding. Regretably the analysis from the soft power approach
deems public diplomacy to have limited relevance in international relations at the moment as
most state initiatives to increase their soft power are at best half-hearted. In the conclusion
the analytical results of the soft power approach are deemed more realistic than both
constructivism and neorealism.
The methodological approach of the thesis is very theoretically centered and a significant
effort has been put in presenting the three theories thoroughly with use of both the works of
the theorists themselves as well as several works of philosophers often cited by them –
including Immanuel Kant, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
64