Rethinking the ‘New’ Public Diplomacy

  • Brian Hocking
Part of the Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations book series (SID)


Events since 11 September 2001 have encouraged renewed debate on a dimension of diplomacy that, in varying forms, has a considerable pedigree. But, as with earlier debates concerning what is ‘old’ and ‘new’ in the practice of diplomacy, there is a danger here in failing to set the key issues within the framework of broader changes in world politics. More precisely, in the context of the theme of this book, current preoccupations with implementing public diplomacy strategies and developing new mechanisms within foreign ministries for overseeing them lead to the danger of misunderstanding the significance of public diplomacy and confusing its role as a mode of exercising power with the changing environments in which power is projected.


Foreign Policy World Politics International Politics Foreign Ministry Soft Power 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    H. Nicolson, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method (London: Thornton Butterworth, 1939), p. 90.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Hamilton and R. Langhorne, The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory and Administration (London: Routledge, 1995), pp. 124–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Carlson and D. Comstock, Citizen Summitry: Keeping the Peace when it Matters Too Much to be Left to Politicians (Los Angeles CA: Tarcher, 1986), p. 13.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Potter (ed.), Cyber-Diplomacy: Managing Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First Century (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    See, for example, R. A. O’Brien, M. Goetz, J. A. Scholte and M. Williams, Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 9.
    J. Hertz, ‘Political Realism Revisited’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 2, June 1981, pp. 182–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 10.
    M. Leonard, Public Diplomacy (London: Foreign Policy Centre, 2002), p. 9.Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    P. van Ham, ‘Branding Territory: Inside the Wonderful Worlds of PR and IR Theory’, Millennium, vol. 31, no. 2, 2002, pp. 249–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 12.
    R. Rosecrance, The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modem World (New York: Basic Books, 1986).Google Scholar
  10. 13.
    P. Cerny, ‘Paradoxes of the Competition State: The Dynamics of Political Globalization’ Government and Opposition, spring 1997, pp. 251–74.Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    W. Olins, Trading Identities: Why Countries and Companies are Taking On Each Other’s Roles (London: Foreign Policy Centre, 1999), pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
  12. 16.
    Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Challenges for the Finnish Foreign Service in the Twenty-First Century (Helsinki: Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 2001), pp. 6 and 21.Google Scholar
  13. 17.
    M. Bruter, ‘Diplomacy without a State: The External Delegations of the European Commission’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 2, 1999, pp. 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 18.
    See J. Nye, Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power (New York: Basic Books, 1990); andGoogle Scholar
  15. J. Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Perseus, 2004).Google Scholar
  16. 19.
    W. R. Mead, ‘America’s Sticky Power’, Foreign Policy, March/April 2004, p. 48.Google Scholar
  17. 20.
    Comment made by Waring Partridge, in D. Bollier, The Rise of Netpolitik: How the Internet is Changing International Politics and Diplomacy, a report of the eleventh annual Aspen Institute round table on Information Technology (Washington DC: Aspen Institute, 2003), p. 17.Google Scholar
  18. 21.
    C. Grimes, ‘US Universities Failed by Visa Process’, Financial Times, 12 May 2004.Google Scholar
  19. 22.
    J. C. Cooper, ‘China has Discovered its Own Economic Consensus’, Financial Times, 8 May 2004.Google Scholar
  20. 23.
    R. McGregor, ‘China’s Success Inspires Envy and Awe’, Financial Times, 28 May 2004.Google Scholar
  21. 24.
    N. Ferguson, ‘Power’, Foreign Policy, January/February, 2003, p. 21.Google Scholar
  22. 26.
    J. Nye, ‘America’s Power: The New Rome Meets the New Barbarians’, The Economist, 23 March 2002, p. 24;Google Scholar
  23. J. Nye, The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
  24. 27.
    K. Reinhard and T. Miller, ‘A Business Problem’, International Herald Tribune, 27 May 2004.Google Scholar
  25. 29.
    J. Manheim, Strategic Public Diplomacy and American Foreign Policy: The Evolution of Influence (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    M. Leonard and V. Alakeson, Going Public: Diplomacy for the Information Society (London: Foreign Policy Centre, 2000), pp. 86–98.Google Scholar
  27. 31.
    M. Woollacott, ‘“Soft Power” Can Win the Battle for Hearts and Minds’, The Guardian, 2 August 2002.Google Scholar
  28. Council on Foreign Relations, Finding America’s Voice: A Strategy for Reinvigorating US Public Diplomacy, report of an independent Task Force (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2003).Google Scholar
  29. 34.
    C. Hill, The Changing Politics of Foreign Policy (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), p. 279.Google Scholar
  30. 35.
    D. Stone, Networks, Second-Track Diplomacy and Regional Cooperation: The Role of Southeast Asian Think Tanks, paper presented to the 38th International Studies Convention, Toronto, March 1997.Google Scholar
  31. 36.
    W. Reinecke, Global Public Policy: Governing without Government? (Washington DC: Brookings, 1998);Google Scholar
  32. W. Reinecke, ‘The Other World Wide Web: Global Public Policy Networks’, Foreign Policy, vol. 117, 2000, pp. 44–57.Google Scholar
  33. 37.
    In a recent book, Anne-Marie Slaughter argues the case for a network approach to diplomacy but does so in the context of exclusively governmental networks. See A-M. Slaughter, A New World Order (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
  34. 39.
    B. Hocking, ‘Catalytic Diplomacy: Beyond “Newness” and “Decline”’, in J. Melissen (ed.), Innovation in Diplomatic Practice (London: Macmillan, 1999), pp. 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 41.
    C. Bob, ‘Merchants of Morality’, Foreign Policy, March/April 2002, pp. 36–45.Google Scholar
  36. 43.
    Many diplomats have noted how the ‘outreach’ function has dramatically expanded. See, for example, K. Rana, Inside Diplomacy (New Delhi: Manas Publications, 2000).Google Scholar
  37. 46.
    R. Cohen, ‘Reflections on the New Global Diplomacy’, in J. Melissen (ed.), Innovation in Diplomatic Practice (Houndmills: Macmillan, 1999), p. 16.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Brian Hocking 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Hocking

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations