Abstract
The edited volume, The Frontiers of Public Diplomacy, brings together 11 authors to address historical and contemporary themes with regard to the practice of public diplomacy. This volume differs from other volumes on public diplomacy in that it attempts to analyse the practice of public diplomacy through a theoretical lens. The analytical framework of Antonio Gramscis’ ‘hegemony’ provides a valuable tool to investigate public diplomacy. This stands in contrast to other interesting volumes such as Rugh (2011), which considers US public diplomacy largely from a public relations perspective of state practice without a critical view to why success or failure occurs. This is echoed by others such as Golan et al. (2015) who study public diplomacy as a method of state communication. Other authors such as Melissen (2005) and Lee and Melisson (2011) along with many other scholars have studied public diplomacy from the perspective of soft power and avenues for state practice. The importance of this volume is the use of hegemony to view public diplomacy as value-laden, a tool of statecraft and power, and to assess reasons for success or failure.
In the first chapter, Alexander frames the book in Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony. Hegemony refers to the notion of an overarching and all-encompassing control of social, political and cultural relations. Hegemony argues that social and cultural control of narrative, thought and consideration of ideas and concepts are highly controlled. The degree of hegemony supposes a notion of knowledge and action that is so common as to be considered ‘common sense’ (p. 7). In this context, the author argues that public diplomacy and the pantheon of previous scholarly literature lacks a theoretical foundation to analyse and evaluate public diplomacy as state practice. The central focus of the chapter lies in the authors’ analysis of neoliberalism as the hegemonic ideology that emanates from powerful states. Public diplomacy as such is a strategy for the maintenance and expansion of power. Gramscian hegemony challenges the entire notion of a common morality or passivity to public diplomacy as practiced by states.
Rawnsley follows with an analysis of communication tools that have been applied to the practice of public diplomacy. Important institutions such as the BBC and Russia Today attempt to straddle the line of a state-sponsored media outlet and objectivity. The author finds that with internet and social media, there are two primary contradiction’s that endure transparency and internal/external audience bias. This dichotomy is the cleavage of foreign policy objectives and hegemonic perceptions by foreign policy subjects. Social media presents its own form of contradiction in that it mobilises domestic political support and simultaneously is consumed by foreign populations. Here lies the heart of the public diplomacy paradox: how to exercise hegemony and power over foreign populations via narrative, while simultaneously broadcasting the purpose of foreign policy to the domestic audience to rally support, which may undermine the previous objective.
In Chapter 3, Bettie investigates public diplomacy operationalised in education exchanges. The author finds that the practice of providing foreign educational scholarships through the Fulbright programme to be a foreign policy tool with limited success. There are a number of factors for this, the most common being ‘educational tourism’ and elite target groups. Drawing on Gramsci and Bourdieu, the author finds that educational diplomacy has hegemonic biases to predisposed populations and barriers of ‘fields of exchange’ in socio-cultural dynamics. This leads to counter-hegemonic forces that can reject hegemonic cultural immersion.
Alexander analyses British colonial public diplomacy during World War II in British Burma. This chapter draws on archival documents for a case study of Anthony Gilchrist McCall, the Indian Civil Service Superintendent for the Lushai Hills. Of interest is the method and philosophy of engagement that McCall utilised. McCall’s philosophy was firmly grounded in the subject groups’ understanding and perception. In order to achieve British foreign policy objectives, McCall chose to engage linguistically, socially and politically with ‘native’ populations to build trust. To institutionalise trust and build affinity to British foreign policy goals, McCall institutionalised sociopolitical engagement through high-level ‘chief’ decision-making, thus, instilling democratic legitimacy. The author further finds that after McCall’s recall to Assam, foreign policy in the Lushai Hills was taken over by the military, which led to a lack of coherency. Important takeaways from this are the dichotomous core of public diplomacy referenced in the previous chapter. The need of states to project power, which are often on a short-term needs basis and the long term approach which is demanded by soft power civilian led approach to public diplomacy can lead to policy confusion.
Graham follows with an insightful look into the Indian National Congress’ nationalist anti-colonial public advocacy from the turn of the century through the interwar years. Of interest are the connections and advocacy that were built by Gandhi, Rai and others. Networks were built with influential figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. and W. E. B. Debois. Institutional connections with fellow travellers of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and American Anti-Imperialist League (AAIL) helped in finding outlets for their advocacy through The Nation and other influential publications. This began to bear fruit with Wilson’s 14 Points through the Roosevelt administration pressuring the British for inclusion of Indian voices towards independence.
Benjamin Ho’s inquiry into diplomacy under premier Xi Jing Ping is a critical analysis of the three dominant themes of contemporary Chinese diplomacy: China as civilisational power, China as a progressive power and China as a moral exemplar. Ho situates these within the critical lens of a counter-hegemonic strategy that seeks to deflect apprehension, fear and rejection of China’s continuous rise to global pre-eminence and possible revisionist motives. Davis follows with a review of Indian yoga diplomacy under the leadership of Narendra Modi. Davis finds that the public diplomacy focus of yoga diplomacy is largely out of sequence with deep yoga philosophy of reflection and deep introspection. Second, the author argues that the public diplomacy strategy is highly superficial, with a focus on Modi as an international guru (p. 140) bereft of philosophical underpinnings.
Amiri and Grandi in Chapter 9 shift the focus of the book to sub-state actors, cities as focal points for public diplomacy. They focus on sister-city programmes based on mutual interest areas such as local industries. Sergunin follows with a larger unit of analysis, regions, to describe Russian border diplomacy. Sergunin finds that in the aftermath of communist Soviet collapse, there opened a policy space for regions to act independently with the European Union’s Eastern flank through the EU Neighbourhood Regional Policy.
Jacob investigates the UN’s outsourcing of public diplomacy. He argues that in the post-Cold War period, the UN had the opportunity to begin acting independently, exercising more influence. However, this coincided with neoliberal hegemony, which undermined UN public diplomacy actions. The author finds that outsourcing and privatisation of UN PR and public diplomacy to private firms and contractors with DRC Congo and Somalian peacekeeping missions resembled military psyops and public influence campaigns. Dubious firms such as Bell Pottinger were used, who at times represented state actors accused of crimes and atrocities such as the Rajapaksa government during the Sri Lankan civil war’s conclusion. The most lucid example of dubious outsourcing provided was the contracting of Aegis Security & Investigations who contracted ex child soldiers from Sierra Leone at below comparable wage levels for security in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The final chapter by Alexander considers the media framing of North Korea and its conjunction with reality. The author argues that hegemonic Western media portrays North Korea foreign policy as ‘mad’, ‘crazy’ and ‘erratic’. The author finds that there is serious distortion in the portrayal of North Korea, and a complete lack of empathy to what North Korea is trying to signal through its actions. The author frames this within the context of the ‘madman theory’ and hegemony. North Korea and other countries such as Iran, Cuba and Libya get tarred with the brush of being ‘mad, ‘irrational’ and ‘erratic’ because they fail to bow to the dictates of neoliberalism.
This is an excellent book for students and scholars of international diplomacy. The title of the book, Frontiers of Public Diplomacy, echoes the breadth of the volume, in that areas which are less travelled in the study of diplomacy, such as regions, localities and historical contexts, are addressed in a meaningful and critical manner. The notion of hegemony is one that is consistently referenced and provides power to the arguments made by the authors. This is an underutilised analytical tool as it pierces the veil that stands as the central contradiction and conundrum of public diplomacy in the information age. How to advance a state’s interests in a manner that seems genuine and authentic in a way which doesn’t contradict and which offers deliverables in a timely manner? The days when public diplomacy was slow and largely asymmetric are long since over. The book addresses this from a historical context of colonialism to the contemporary world of social media. The volume is a worthwhile read in whole or in part to anyone who is interested in the nature, modes and means of public diplomacy.