Two superpower rivalries during the Cold War created mutual aggressions between the nations and divided the international state system into blocs. Propaganda became highly popular in shaping an image for both sides. Thus, since the end of the Cold War, with the collapse of the Soviet Union it has become important to remove the previously “built-in” and mainly negative images from the publics of each conflicting sides. Even though it is considered that the United States of America has greatly reduced its spending on propaganda after the Cold War, as in “emasculating the USIA <(United State Information Agency)> and paring the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe down to almost residual proportions” (Leonard, 2002, p-2), the U.S. is still investing a great amount of attention into shaping or reshaping its image abroad. In order to remove aggressions and create mutual understanding, in pursuit of its own national interest, ofcourse! the U.S. has made an effective use of Public Diplomacy.
As the main aim of Public Diplomacy is to influence the governments of the opposing states indirectly through the publics of these governments, it is possible to see how much the U.S is investing in Public Diplomacy by the amount of funding it provides for scholarships, exchange programs, visits and etc. For example, the exchange program, FLEX (Future Leaders Exchange) Program, sponsored by the Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, that was established in 1992,
http://exchanges.state.gov/youth/programs/flex.html illustrates some of the main aspects of Public Diplomacy and in particular, Relationship Building. First of all, as Steven Curtis was mentioning at the lecture, even the name of this program reinforces Steven’s point that this exchange programs are mainly aimed for Long-term benefits as it is anticipated that these exchange students will become influential individuals with a positive attitude towards the country. Consequently, “it is important not just to develop relationship, but to ensure that the experiences which people take away are positive and that there is a follow-up afterwards”. (Leonard, 2002, P-18). If you have noticed from the information on the website, these exchange programs usually require that the students take active role in sharing their experience after the end of study programs. The program also entails in itself, that the image of the country not always or necessarily brings in itself an “Ideal and Flawless” state, but instead it allows to see the state from a different perspective with all of its “warts and all”, which complexify individuals understanding of the country. Thus, these programs enables the “students to leave with a much more sophisticated ideas of … strengths and weaknesses”. (Leonard,2002, p-18)
As a result, as this program does, Public Diplomacy impacts in the following ways:
o Increases people’s familiarity with one’s country
o Increases people’s appreciation of ones country
o Engages people from one’s country
o Influences people (Leonard, 2002, p-8-10)
Thus, after the Cold War, Public Diplomacy has been important in developing understanding and cooperation between the U.S and the former Soviet Union countries in particular.
Leyla, I think you have made a very good overview on public diplomacy of the United States. I think it would be interesting to include to what extent does the US rely on public diplomacy in foreign policy. As we know, the US is usually presented as a typical "hard power" in the international system. One could argue that the Americans are trying to rebuild their image after "the recent decline in U.S. attractiveness" (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59888/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-americas-soft-power) and it is not their genuine interest but a hopeless attempt. Do you agree?
ReplyDelete