When Kathleen Stephens came to Seoul in 2008 as U.S. ambassador, she started blogging about the host country in the local language and under her Korean name. She loved its traditional food and biking around the country. In one summer, she even went down to Jeju Island to pick abalones and octopuses along with female divers there.
After three years, she had become one of the most beloved Americans here. Her approachability, professional enthusiasm and command of the local language have made many Koreans feel more intimate with her superpower homeland.
Stephens's case epitomizes the power of public diplomacy which has become an "essential governmental toolkit" in the fast-changing, increasingly multifaceted international relations, Jan Melissen, a prominent expert in public diplomacy, said.
"Governments increasingly employ public diplomacy because they are conscious of the importance of their country's reputation abroad and also because they realize it helps them to meet their foreign policy goals," the Dutch-born scholar said in an email interview with The Korea Herald.
"More and more contacts between countries are of a non-official nature, and in an interconnected world good relations are better building blocks than a self-invented image."
Melissen is a senior researcher at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations "Clingendael" in The Hague, professor of diplomacy at the University of Antwerp in Belgium, and founding co-editor of The Hague Journal of Diplomacy. He recently co-authored the Clingendael report "Futures for Diplomacy: Diplomacy in the 21st Century."
 |
Jan Melissen |
Korea Herald: How do you define public diplomacy?
Jan Melissen: Public diplomacy is about engagement with people in other countries, complementary to international relations through official contacts.
Governments increasingly employ public diplomacy because they are conscious of the importance of their country's reputation abroad and also because they realize it helps them to meet their foreign policy goals.
Public diplomacy aims at three things. First of all it is an instrument to help understand foreign cultures, attitudes and behavior. It can therefore also be described as a form of listening-based dialogue.
Second, public diplomacy is critically important for governments to build sustainable international relationships. More and more contacts between countries are of a non-official nature, and in an interconnected world good relations are better building blocks than a self-invented image.
Third, governmental public diplomacy has the purpose of influencing foreign attitudes and behavior. Broadly speaking, a better overseas image enables governments to achieve their goals in the fields of economics and politics.
Public diplomacy is therefore essential in today's governmental toolkit. It is a lubricant without which contemporary diplomacy would be hopelessly out-of-date.
KH: Could you provide some examples of good public diplomacy?
JM: Culture, people and ideas are drivers of good public diplomacy, and it is in these spheres that we can find the best examples.
The Hallyu wave does a splendid job for Korea in reaching people and places that are inaccessible to more traditional forms of diplomatic interaction.
International exchanges and visitor programs are other great examples. "Seeing is believing" and visiting a country leaves an indelible image on peoples' minds. Young people, students or high potentials in the formative years of their lives, can be excellent foreign ambassadors for one's own country.
Likewise, government-sponsored visitor programs leave guests to make up their own minds about the host country. Many countries followed the example of the U.S. international visitors program, dating back to the Cold War.
In addition, good ideas can make a difference in international relations and work well for individual countries. The successes of Canada in the 1990s in campaigning successfully against landmines and its efforts in support of the creation of the International Criminal Court remain an example and inspiration for other middle powers with global ambitions.
They show what such countries are capable of achieving in spite of their lack of hard power. Today a fast-changing world is also in need of imaginative stakeholders.
KH: How would you relate the changing global political environment including the rise of Asia to the growing importance of public diplomacy?
JM: After the first decade of the 21st century, the West's relative decline and the economic crisis seem to have pushed the preoccupation with national image somewhat into the background. But what we also see at work in that part of the world is that public diplomacy is quietly coming of age.
European and North American governments are going to great lengths to incorporate public diplomacy into broader diplomatic practice. Governments recognize that diplomacy as a whole has become increasingly enmeshed within society. Hence public relations concerns are paramount in diplomatic affairs.
In other parts of the world with generally less developed civil societies and regional power rivalry, like in Asia, the lure of public diplomacy lies in its potential to contribute to solving regional problems and alleviating international tension.
Developments like the trilateral public diplomacy initiative between Korea, China and Japan should therefore be applauded, even though its achievements are still limited. Asian-style public diplomacy should be capable of mobilizing broader forces and relationships than those associated with national rivalry.
The islands dispute between the leading economic powers in East Asia shows that the line between public diplomacy and propaganda can be a fine one in an environment with Cold War features. In a much broader sense, the rise of Asia adds to the diversity of values in international relations, and the consequent need to manage such diversity in global institutions.
Public diplomacy concerns are thus woven into the fabric of complex foreign policy agendas. Ignoring them would be at Asian governments' on peril, even though impatient politicians with short-term agenda's may wonder what public diplomacy can actually achieve.
KH: What is the impact of public diplomacy on trade and economic cooperation with other countries?
JM: Students of diplomacy have established that the work of embassies, consulates and other missions has a positive effect on foreign trade. Whether the same is true for public diplomacy activities is harder to establish, but businessmen experience every day that it is easier to make deals when the weather is fair in bilateral relations.
What is true for diplomatic negotiations also applies to business: a good atmosphere helps a great deal. Sadly, in recent months it was plain for everybody in Asia to see the opposite at work.
Rising tensions in the territorial dispute over uninhabited islands between Tokyo and Beijing (with Seoul and Taipei making their own claims) have not missed their effect on Japanese business interests in China. East Asia is waking up to the sad reality that there is a tipping point where economic relations do not remain unaffected by ancestral animosity between the region's principal powers.
In a part of the world where former rivals and enemies have not come to terms with their common past, public diplomacy is no luxury. Efforts in this field go right to the heart of the troubles of one of the tensest international regions.
KH: Many Asian countries that are engulfed in territorial disputes see public protests against and worsening sentiment toward their counterparts. What kind of role can public diplomacy play in tackling these challenges?
JM: There are common responsibilities for the countries involved in the dispute. They are the main stakeholders in the region's future stability. For years to come, managing the differences that have now erupted will require a lot of work. The islands, however small, are unlikely to sink into the ocean, and the governments of the region's four leading economies have locked themselves into their current negotiating positions.
Their public diplomacy work will however also have to target the domestic public. A less virulent public opinion at home is ultimately in the interests of governments that are right now only banging the drums of their own righteousness. Territorial dispute or not, East Asian governments know that they do not only prosper with an ever closer web of economic interdependence in the region, but also have to promote deeper interconnectedness between their societies.
What is needed is a tacit East Asian public diplomacy consensus that aims at strengthening the regional network. In the meantime the world is watching. Democratic countries like Japan and Korea would make an excellent public diplomacy move if they were to ask for non-binding expert advice outside of their own region.
I can imagine that a country like the Netherlands with its longstanding tradition of maritime law and commitment to global justice would make an excellent setting for a seminar. Such an initiative would send a message of confidence by Asia's democracies to like-minded nations elsewhere in the word.
KH: What are the best assets for Korea to utilize in its public diplomacy strategy?
JM: This is what Koreans know best and there is now hopefully some new political momentum to pull together Korea's assets!
Bold thinking about integrating public diplomacy into a broader public diplomacy strategy befits Korea's ambitions as a middle power. The country's commitment to an ongoing process of regionalization in East Asia and its ideas for a better world would be key elements of such a strategy.
KH: How can public diplomacy help offset the "Korea Discount," ease foreigners' concerns about North Korea and change their perception of a divided Korea?
JM: For public opinion in distant countries with limited interest in world affairs, Korea will continue to be associated with its peninsular problem and the reality of a divided nation.
There is also little doubt that the ways of the heavily armed ‘hermit kingdom' in the north, with its eccentric leadership, will continue to attract a lot of media attention. The North produces all the misery, high drama and stark contrasts that are needed to make a good story, and it of course also is plain to see that there is a lot at stake.
The demonstrative soft power of the South's achievements is however an enormous resource. Confidence in its own economic, political and social accomplishments and the country's institutions and values would go a long way in showing foreigners the "Korea problem" in its proper perspective.
KH: The increasing popularity of Korea's pop culture is apparently helping the government's effort to reinforce public diplomacy. But the government's concern is that the K-pop audience is largely confined to young people who are unlikely stay interested in traditional Korean culture. What's your advice?
JM: Many countries' public diplomacy strategies incorporate efforts to attract young generations, but most of them do probably consider that they are not nearly in the league of Korea with its vibrant pop culture and the "Gangnam effect."
The attractions of Korean culture to younger generations should act as a suitable public diplomatic door opener. Engaging foreign youth on a much broader front of activities and interests is probably one of the most promising and ambitious projects for MOFAT.
The responsibility for becoming involved in Korea's national public diplomacy project is however not limited to MOFAT and goes well beyond the foreign ministry and even government.
Still, strategies by government and arms-length institutions like the Korea Foundation may help attract foreign youth to visit Korea. Such stays contribute to the kinds of relationships that are a precondition of more accurate foreign perceptions and a higher level of foreign understanding of what Korea is all about.
KH: As a single-race nation, Korea's exclusionism or its unfriendly attitude toward foreigners may damage the country's image. Should we worry about that?
JM: Demographic trends point in the direction of another destiny for Korea than that of a single-race nation, so there is probably little alternative to contemplating a future with more foreigners residing on the peninsula.
Social exclusion would be a bad idea as foreigners in Korea are just as much part of a society in flux as ethnic Koreans themselves. Unfriendly attitudes to foreigners at home would not go unnoticed in their countries of origin and run the risk of having a more general negative effect on the country's overseas image. In recent years my own country, the Netherlands, has experienced this as a result of anti-Islamic tendencies in Dutch society, and everybody is familiar with the predicament of Denmark as a result of the so-called Cartoon Affair.
Korean policy would benefit by learning from the mistakes that other countries have made, and also from the best practices that countries in Europe, North America and Australasia have developed.
It helps to see foreign groups in Korea not just as a problem. They could be reframed as a potential public diplomacy resource. "New Koreans" may help native Koreans to understand the countries and cultures where their immigrants come, and even to learn more about themselves.
KH: What can governments do to expand cooperation in public diplomacy with the legislature, private sector and civil society?
JM: Successful public diplomacy is about new ways of working with other actors in society, including the private sector and non-governmental organizations, and looking for imaginative ways of working together.
The new public diplomacy implies new patterns of communication. It is more and more a network activity where government relies on the sometimes greater legitimacy, knowledge and access of other actors.
Businesses representatives from Korean chaebol and other firms may simply have better access in foreign countries than state diplomats, and major international NGOs are extremely well informed.
The first thing governments should do is to ask themselves about their own value-added vis-à-vis such powerful non-governmental players. What does not make things easier, is that civil society organizations are proud of their autonomy from government.
Their increasing activity and entrepreneurial spirit shows MOFAT that public diplomacy is not always initiated by government. Another challenge is that in many countries governments have lost some of their traditional ground, and that public diplomacy discussions are played out against the background of a crisis of confidence between government and the individual.
KH: How can we boost synergy between public diplomacy and other areas such as official development assistance, social media, academia and peacekeeping operations?
JM: Most, if not all, important aspects of foreign and defense policy have a public diplomacy component. Korea is also well advised to work with academia to help establish the kinds of long-lasting informal relationships and knowledge-based ties that are so important to help underpin a country's overseas reputation.
For Korea, associated by all foreigners with the marvels of the new digital world, it would make a lot of sense to have a very strong digital presence and visibility in its public diplomacy activities.
The social media are an incredible tool for the modern diplomat in that they enhance the representational capacity of diplomacy. One diplomat may be in touch with thousands of people and the social media give embassies a fascinating reach beyond the capital. Diplomats, particularly those posted in authoritarian countries, have developed an outreach capacity that they could never imagine before the rise of the Internet.
The emerging trend that not only politicians but also individual diplomats participate in the global e-conversation may not yet be fully accepted, but is simply unstoppable for governments that like to think of themselves as trendsetters that are ahead of the pack.
KH: As public diplomacy could invite other sectors, including culture and sports, fragmentation may become an issue as has been in the ODA field. Do you have such a concern? If so, what can be done to avoid the problem?
JM: A whole-of-government approach is desirable, but there is an inherent tension between too much of a centralized effort and the principles and characteristics of joined-up government in a pluralistic democracy.
Some image gurus may have led certain sections of government to believe that unbelievable things can be achieved in terms of image projection and perception, but in no country such a thing happened as a result of the magic hand of foreign consultants.
Public diplomacy is and has always been a form of DIY ("do-it-yourself"), to which other sectors make an important and sometimes independent contribution. The irony of public diplomacy is that professionalism goes hand in hand with a sober assessment of what it may achieve.
Public diplomacy changes the way diplomats are working, but it is no new paradigm that substitutes traditional diplomacy and no miracle cure. As to the latter, the diplomats themselves who are being asked by their political masters to show the results are the first to know. Turning their back on public diplomacy is however no option. It would be the diplomatic equivalent of the denying the existence of the internet.
