Public diplomacy is a function of foreign cultural policy Secret diplomacy has in fact been invaded by the so-called open and democratic diplomacy that US President Woodrow Wilson introduced into the international system after World War I: “Open peace negotiations with open participation, after which there will be no more secret international agreements and diplomacy will always function sincerely and under the eyes of the public. (Morgenthau, 1995: 669). The basis of such a concept was a basic model of democratic diplomacy, derived from the fact that a diplomat (as a civil servant) was subordinate to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Foreign Affairs (as a member of the government) is responsible and dependent on the parliamentary majority, while the parliament represents the will of the sovereign people (Nicolson, 1963: 42). In fact, the requirement for public diplomacy initially meant the demand to inform the public that negotiations are taking place (except in rare cases) and that international agreements will be published as a result of these negotiations (Rangajaran, 1998:21). Thus, on the one hand, we have the permissible secrecy or discretion in the negotiations necessary for their proper functioning, while, on the other hand, we have the opening of diplomatic activities or the availability of information on diplomatic activity (publication of the results of the negotiations, follow-up of the negotiations, press conferences, etc.) as a prerequisite for democratic public control over foreign policy and its activities. Revision in the sense of a parliamentary debate and ratification of negotiations. international treaties. Therefore, the basic framework for various diplomatic activities, including public ones, is today in principle represented by parliamentary-democratic political systems, and we can therefore speak neither of secret diplomacy nor of “transparent” diplomacy, but of diplomacy that balances the discretion and publicity of its activities to an appropriate degree. 2.1 In general, any consideration of public diplomacy begins with a discussion of its meaning. The International Public Affairs Network has stated that the term public diplomacy is “so questionable that definitions and explanations precede most uses.” [1] In this chapter, the Committee examines different definitions of “public diplomacy”, explaining its understanding of public diplomacy and how it intends to use this term for the purposes of the report. 2.22 For the purposes of this report, the Committee applies this definition of public diplomacy, both broadly and contractively, depending on the issues under consideration. It draws on the broader understanding of public diplomacy when examining: the coherence, consistency and credibility of Australia`s public diplomacy messages; the nature of Australia`s dialogue and engagement with the international community; and coordination of public diplomacy activities. In this context, it recognises that the work of some agencies, such as AusAID and Defence, is not primarily concerned with public diplomacy, but that an important by-product of their activities contributes significantly to Australia`s international reputation.
The committee wishes to examine how the work of these bodies, as well as cultural and educational institutions and other groups, including the Australian diaspora, intersects with Australian public diplomacy. In the years leading up to World War II, for example, Britain waged a silent but effective campaign to win the support of the American people for its cause. Many Americans felt that Britain had exaggerated the German threat during World War I and unnecessarily dragged the United States into that conflict. As a result, British public diplomats slowly cultivated their message, while taking care not to elicit accusations of propaganda. To do this, they established relationships with members of the American press who had more credibility with the American public. They also restricted direct broadcasts from the British Broadcasting Corporation in the United States. People all over the world, in different countries, cities and towns have opposing opinions, especially when it comes to politics. Diplomacy provides a process for different parties to successfully communicate with each other and better understand different points of view. The American Psychological Association (APA) states that negotiation and diplomacy are the foundations of international relations.
Despite its vital importance in our lives, many people ask, “What is public diplomacy?” Grunig (1993) concluded that modern governments and other international actors use public relations strategies when engaging in public diplomacy. Thus, he shifted his conception of public relations work into the international space and divided so-called international public relations work into four models – press representation model, public information model, bidirectional asymmetric model, and bidirectional symmetric model. This concept was developed by L`Etang (1996) using the theoretical theoretical thinking of diplomacy, arguing that the three positions (Machiavelli, Grotius and Kant), which often merge, can also be found in public relations literature. Public diplomacy, also known as popular diplomacy, is one of various government-sponsored efforts to communicate directly with foreign audiences. Public diplomacy encompasses all official efforts to persuade certain sectors of foreign opinion to support or tolerate a government`s strategic objectives. Methods include statements by policymakers, targeted campaigns by government organizations dedicated to public diplomacy, and efforts to persuade international media to present official policy positively to foreign audiences. In his essay “Public Diplomacy` Before Gullion: The Evolution of a Phrase,” Nicholas J. Cull of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy writes, “The first use of the term `public diplomacy` is actually not American at all, but in a January 1856 London Times editorial. It is simply used as a synonym for politeness in an article that criticizes the attitude of President Franklin Pierce. Cull writes that Edmund Gullion, dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a prominent retired foreign service official, “was the first to use the term in its modern sense.” [3] In 1965, Gullion founded the Edward R Center.
Murrow of Public Diplomacy, and Cull writes: “A Murrow Center pamphlet provided a practical summary of Gullion`s concept”: 2.6 The conduct of public diplomacy is therefore broader and less governed by the laws and protocols governing relations between traditional diplomacy elites. [8] The main concern of a country`s public diplomacy is to positively influence public opinion or the opinion of another country`s elite in order to promote its own interests. Graduates can find jobs in public diplomacy in both public and private agencies. The State Department trains people in international relations, and eventually these employees can rise to the position of foreign ambassador. Public diplomacy promotes and marks states abroad Already the “fathers” of public diplomacy recognize Signitzer and Coombs (1992) in addition to the so-called stubborn line, which also pursues the so-called soft line of public diplomacy through propaganda and persuasion. This is based on the principle that information and cultural programmes must circumvent current foreign policy objectives and focus on the highest and long-term national objectives. From this perspective comes the idea that public diplomacy is not only in the function of foreign policy, but rather as so-called cultural diplomacy assumes the role of the implementation of so-called foreign cultural policy, the development of international cultural relations, intercultural dialogue, understanding and cooperation. Complications already arise in the substantive perspective of such an understanding of public diplomacy: national interests and foreign policy objectives, which are in principle based on an internal consensus on national identity and values, are already complications that arise in the substantive perspective of such a conception of public diplomacy: national interests and foreign policy objectives, which are in principle based on an internal consensus on national identity and values.
