Advertisement

The New Public Diplomacy—Fact or Fiction

  • Ilan ManorEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan Series in Global Public Diplomacy book series (GPD)

Abstract

Despite the fact that diplomatic institutions throughout the world employ digital technologies, few studies to date have examined how African and Eastern European diplomats utilize digital technologies to obtain public diplomacy goals. For these nations, digital technologies may prove especially beneficial given their small number of embassies and globally dispersed diaspora. Additionally, few studies to date have offered models for measuring the scope of engagement and dialogue between diplomats and digital publics. This chapter presents a new model for measuring the scope of engagement between diplomats and digital publics and also analyzes the dialogic activities of five African MFAs and four Lithuanian embassies. The corresponding results demonstrate that African and Eastern European embassies offer digital publics a breadth of information leading to the democratization of public diplomacy.

References

  1. Adesina, O. S. (2017). Foreign policy in an era of digital diplomacy. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1297175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archetti, C. (2012). The impact of new media on diplomatic practice: An evolutionary model of change. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 7(2), 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bean, H., & Comor, E. (2017). Data-driven public diplomacy: A critical and reflexive assessment. All Azimuth, 1.Google Scholar
  4. Bernal, V. (2014). Nation as network: Diaspora, cyberspace, and citizenship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjola, C. (2018). Digital diplomacy and impression management. Presentation, London: Canada House.Google Scholar
  6. Bjola, C., & Jiang, L. (2015). Social media and public diplomacy: A comparative analysis of the digital diplomatic strategies of the EU, US and Japan in China. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy theory and practice (pp. 71–88). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bjola, C., & Manor, I. (2018). Revisiting Putnam’s two-level game theory in the digital age: Domestic digital diplomacy and the Iran nuclear deal. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 1–30.Google Scholar
  8. Bortree, D. S., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 317–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Causey, C., & Howard, P. N. (2013). Delivering digital public diplomacy. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, & A. Fisher (Eds.), Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 144–156). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke, A. (2015). Business as usual? An evolution of British and Canadian digital diplomacy as policy change. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy theory and practice (pp. 111–126). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2014). Thematic analysis. In Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 6626–6628). Springer: Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Comor, E., & Bean, H. (2012). America’s ‘engagement’ delusion: Critiquing a public diplomacy consensus. International Communication Gazette, 74(3), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Copeland, D. (2013). Taking diplomacy public: Science, technology and foreign ministries in a heteropolar world. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, & A. Fisher (Eds.), Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 56–69). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  14. Cowan, G., & Arsenault, A. (2008). Moving from monologue to dialogue to collaboration: The three layers of public diplomacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 10–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cull, N. J. (2008). Public diplomacy: Taxonomies and histories. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferguson, J. E., Salominaite, E., & Boersma, K. (2016). Past, present and future: How the Lithuanian diaspora in the Netherlands accumulates human capital from social capital. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(13), 2205–2225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gregory, B. (2011). American public diplomacy: Enduring characteristics, elusive transformation. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 6(3–4), 351–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hocking, B. (2005). Rethinking the “new” public diplomacy. In J. Melissen (Ed.), The new public diplomacy: Soft power in international relations (pp. 28–44). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hocking, B., & Melissen, J. (2015). Diplomacy in the digital age. Clingendael: Netherlands Institute of International Relations.Google Scholar
  20. Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 561–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kampf, R., Manor, I., & Segev, E. (2015). Digital diplomacy 2.0? A cross-national comparison of public engagement in Facebook and Twitter. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 10(4), 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010, April). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Proceedings of the 19th international conference on world wide web (pp. 591–600). AcM.Google Scholar
  23. Lutyens, A. (2018). Investigating New Zealand’s model of democratized public diplomacy [In person].Google Scholar
  24. Manor, I. (2015a, January 19). In digital diplomacy a narrowing digital divide-part 1 [Blog]. Retrieved from https://digdipblog.com/2015/01/19/divide/.
  25. Manor, I. (2015b, January 26). In digital diplomacy a narrowing digital divide-part 2 [Blog]. Retrieved from https://digdipblog.com/2015/01/26/divide-2/.
  26. Manor, I. (2016a). Are we there yet: Have MFA s realized the potential of digital diplomacy? Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy, 1(2), 1–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Manor, I. (2016b, February 28). How the UK & US are fighting ISIS online [Blog]. Retrieved from https://digdipblog.com/2016/02/28/how-the-uk-us-are-fighting-isis-online/.
  28. Manor, I. (2017). America’s selfie—Three years later. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 13(4), 308–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manor, I. (2018, April 27). Delivering digital consular aid [Blog]. Retrieved from https://digdipblog.com/2018/04/27/delivering-digital-consular-aid/.
  30. Manor, I., & Crilley, R. (2018). Visually framing the Gaza War of 2014: The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Twitter. Media, War & Conflict.Google Scholar
  31. Manor, I., & Kampf, R. (2019). Digital nativity and digital engagement: Implications for the practice of dialogic digital diplomacy (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
  32. Manor, I., & Segev, E. (2015). America’s selfie: How the US portrays itself on its social media accounts. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy theory and practice (pp. 89–108). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. McNutt, K. (2014). Public engagement in the Web 2.0 era: Social collaborative technologies in a public sector context. Canadian Public Administration, 57(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Melissen, J. (2005). The new public diplomacy: Between theory and practice. In J. Melissen (Ed.), The new public diplomacy: Soft power in international relations (pp. 3–27). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Metzgar, E. T. (2012). Is it the medium or the message? Social media, American public diplomacy & Iran. Global Media Journal, 12(21), 1.Google Scholar
  36. Miller, D., & Horst, H. A. (2017). The digital and the human: A prospectus for digital anthropology. In H. A. Horst and D. Miller (Eds.), Digital anthropology (pp. 3–38). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  37. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kenya. (2014). Kenyan diaspora policy. Retrieved from http://www.mfa.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Kenya-Diaspora-Policy.pdf, July 22, 2017.
  38. OECD. (2012). Connecting with emigrants: A global profile of diasporas 2015. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/publications/connecting-with-emigrants-9789264239845-en.htm.
  39. Pamment, J. (2013). Introduction. In J. Pamment, New public diplomacy in the 21st century: A comparative study of policy and practice (pp. 1–19). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Pamment, J. (2016). Digital diplomacy as transmedia engagement: Aligning theories of participatory culture with international advocacy campaigns. New Media & Society, 18(9), 2046–2062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Paulauskas, R. (2018). Understanding Lithuania’s digital diplomacy model [In person].Google Scholar
  42. Rana, K. S. (2013). Diaspora diplomacy and public diplomacy. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, & A. Fisher (Eds.), Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 70–85). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  43. Reynolds, A., & McCombs, M. (2002). News influence on our pictures of the world. In Media effects (pp. 11–28). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Russo, P. (2013, February 28). Digital diplomacy in the Middle East and North Africa [Blog]. Retrieved from https://blogs.fco.gov.uk/pipparusso/2013/02/28/digital-diplomacy-in-the-middle-east-and-north-africa/.
  45. Saunders, H. H. (2013). The relational paradigm and sustained dialogue. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, & A. Fisher (Eds.), Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 132–143). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  46. Sharma, D. (2015, June). Digital diplomacy: Making friends in the age of Facebook. Tablet Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/192177/digital-diplomacy.
  47. Spry, D. (2018). Facebook diplomacy: A data-driven, user-focused approach to Facebook use by diplomatic missions. Media International Australia, 168(1), 62–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vanc, A. M. (2012). Post-9/11 US public diplomacy in eastern Europe: Dialogue via new technologies or face-to-face communication? Global Media Journal, 11(21), 1–19.Google Scholar
  50. Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 102–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International DevelopmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations