Essay Example: Foundations of Public Diplomacy

The existing difference between public affairs (PA) and public diplomacy (PD) has both been misunderstood and contended for a long time. Although, there seems to be no much difference between the two, there is more than meets the Eye when perceived from a broader perspective. According to Heller and Persson (2009) PA includes what we do concerning our activities and other relevant events. Public diplomacy, on the other hand, implies a particular semblance of legitimacy that is not only intended to inform but also to influence a targeted audience. For instance, in the case of multinational organizations such as NATO and the EU, the term public diplomacy is used to refer to their kind of communication that they maintain with the public of member states especially public in the countries that they are engaged in operations. This is primarily because, diplomacy, unlike affairs, implies that these countries, are considered legitimate international actors who are on a level similar to states.

In a similar regard, the fundamental difference between the two is substantiated by the differences in the primary audiences, the core commitments as well as the purposes of the two. More precisely, public affairs are committed to fulfilling both a democratic and a pragmatic need for timely and accurate information. On the contrary, public diplomacys core commitment, especially in the United States, is centered on shaping the actions, opinions, and perceptions of other nations to be more in line with the national interests of the United States (Heller & Persson, 2009). This is mainly defined by factors such as the administration at any particular time. Thus, in a nutshell, while the core purpose of public affairs is to give information to an audience that is limited to a domestic population, Public diplomacys primary purpose is to both inform and also influence an audience that includes leaders of foreign countries and the public as a whole.

TASK TWO

Military Psychological Operations as Public Diplomacy

I agree, there is a very narrow gap between public diplomacy (PD) and psychological operations (PSYOP). However, drawn from a broader perspective, the relation between the two is seen in the fact that the two both include a foreign audience. More fundamentally, PD entails the manner in which a particular government can manage its presence outside of its domestic population.

Based on the explanation given in your post, regarding the cost and benefits of PD over PSYOP, this can be evidenced through an analysis of a real-life scenario. For instance, the United States government exerts a lot of formal efforts regarding public diplomacy (PD) as a primary means of repairing their image especially in the Islamic countries and the Middle East at large. In these countries, various extremist groups have been inculcated into a belief that has over time, fostered intolerance and hatred towards the Western countries. In this regard, the United States makes use of PSYOP as a public diplomacy tool that is aimed at changing the way these Muslim nations perceive the United States, alongside other western countries. To a broader extent, military psychological operations are in such cases used to carefully coordinate international efforts to bring a sense of immunity to new generations of Muslim extremists from their ambiguous hate speech perceptions and messages so as to help them understand the west and in the long run, foster diverse and cross-cultural ties that will enable them to practice tolerance with each other.

Therefore, based on this context, it is evident that PD and PSYOP are not just two contrasting elements but instead, PSYOP is used as a diplomacy tool that helps spread messages of the indigenous population (Kilbane, 2007).

References

Heller, K. S., & Persson, L. M. (2009). The Distinction Between Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kilbane, M. (2007). Military Psychological Operations as Public Diplomacy. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Coordination/Downloads/Week%201%20-%20Military%20Psychological%20Operations%20as%20Public%20Diplomacy%20(Kilbane).pdf