Principles of PD: Chapter I - Power, Statecraft, and Diplomacy
A. The international system and the information environment
States (and other actors) operate in a changing context. Since the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, the international system has been organized around sovereign states that do not interfere with each other’s internal matters and interact with each other through treaties and other formal mechanisms. The system of international organizations and institutions developed at the end of the Second World War—such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and a host of others, was based on state membership. This was also true for major military and diplomatic alliances that formed during the Cold War. Non-state actors have also been persistent in the international environment, though their influence has shifted over time. When energized and activated, highly-influential individuals or groups may be considered non-state actors. Non-state actors exercise power and influence the international system to varying degrees.
Academics sometimes describe the structural characteristics of the international system as multipolar, bipolar, or unipolar, depending on the relative power of dominant state actors in the system. The structural characteristics of the international system (e.g., the number of poles) affect policy decisions related to setting foreign policy priorities, thinking strategically, managing alliances and partnerships, and allocating resources effectively. The Cold War was a bipolar system, with the United States and the Soviet Union balancing each other as “superpowers.” Each had many satellite states in its respective orbit or sphere of influence. The balance of power shifted to a unipolar system with the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, when the United States was largely recognized as the world’s sole superpower, although its power was not unchallenged in this period.
Today, most elected and appointed officials and long-tenured public servants agree that the United States is in competition with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). For example, President Joseph R. Biden said in April 2021 to a Joint Session of Congress, “We compete with China and other countries to win the 21st Century." What it means to be in “competition” and what it means to “win” have many interpretations, but each of these interpretations rests on a fundamental theory about the nature and sources of the United States’ and the PRC’s power, and their ability to use that power to produce outcomes in the real world. What this competition means in structural terms and what it means for the future of the international system and U.S. policy is up for debate.
A significant part of the contemporary international system is the information environment. The information environment is the space (physical and metaphorical) where actors create, exchange, store, process, interpret, use, and act upon messages (from both rhetorical acts and physical actions). These processes combine and recombine to form narratives and non-narrative structures and interpretations that, in turn, affect other parts of the system. Scholars define it as “the space where human cognition, technology, and content converge.” The information environment is a complex adaptive system that responds to emerging social norms, new technologies, and external inputs.
The contemporary information environment results from the information revolution of the late twentieth century, driven by technological breakthroughs in computing and communications. Societal revolutions (e.g., the agricultural revolution or the industrial revolution) fundamentally transform how the world works or how people think and interact. Today, we understand information to be constantly, abundantly available. This ubiquity of information shapes bilateral, multilateral, global, and interpersonal relationships, organizations, and systems. Defining information is, itself, a challenge, but definitions are generally structured to differentiate between data, information, and knowledge. Data is uninterpreted facts, measurements, observations, and symbols; information is structured, useful data, or data with significance in a particular context; and knowledge is the organization of information into a system of understanding. Information requires sense-making, meaning, and interpretation of facts or data.
One result of the information revolution has been the empowerment of networked non-state actors, which has subsequently changed how information and ideas move
through networks to affect individuals’ and groups’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors in the real world. To implement successful foreign policy or national security strategy, states and governments require specific approaches to managing information informed by threats (e.g., the problem of disinformation) and opportunities (e.g., the spread of democracy as an ideal).
As technology has advanced and integrated our communications systems, more diplomacy becomes “public.” Publics can influence governments and other actors in the international system. The information that publics have, and the way they interpret it and act on it, can influence governments and other actors. Importantly, publics' influence is not limited to democracies and open societies, where it is easy to associate public opinion with government response. Publics may also shape action in other types of governance systems, although through different methods. For example, suppose a regime is concerned about retaining power. In that case, it may restrict the flow of information or use information to keep elites’ political opinions aligned with the ruling power’s interests.
B. The nature and sources of power
Hans Morgenthau identified nine constituent elements of national power: geography, natural resources, industrial capacity, military preparedness, population, national character, national morale, quality of diplomacy, and quality of government. Our list would be slightly different today, perhaps including access to networked technology, innovation, balance of trade, or an educated populace. Metaphorically, we can think of these elements as the inputs of an equation.
Power is the result or output of the equation. But measuring and comparing power is difficult and often elusive. The equation is not as simple as just adding up the inputs and comparing outputs—the number of people in uniform, the number of tanks or missiles, gross domestic product, economic inequality, the number of embassies or ambassadors, the number of tweets or press releases, box office receipts from films, Olympic medals won, or the number of exchange students studying in universities. In reality, power is relative, impermanent, and complex.
Furthermore, power is latent until it is transformed into either influence or force to achieve effects: the ability to persuade, coerce, or compel. Anything that might constitute national power must be translated, instrumentally, into an effective application. We derive tools or instruments from these resources, and use these tools and instruments to advance national interest. Each state or government may use its tools in a unique way, giving it advantages or disadvantages in the international system. Academics have rigorous theoretical disagreements over the exact nature of the levers that convert elements into tools into power into influence. Policy makers use these competing theories as (sometimes unstated) starting places to underwrite widely diverging policy decisions on how to maintain and maximize state power.
C. Statecraft and diplomacy
Statecraft is the management of state affairs, using the tools or instruments of national power. Diplomacy is and has been a key element of statecraft, and “public” diplomacy has been a part of this tradition of statecraft for centuries. Today, public diplomacy is often seen as an offshoot of conventional or traditional diplomacy—that is, diplomacy conducted in private and between governments, in person or through written communication channels.
IMAGE - WHAT IS PUBLIC DIPLOMACY?
Historically, there was no distinction between “diplomacy” and “public diplomacy.” This distinction may result from the late coinage of the term “public diplomacy” itself. In English, “diplomacy” was in use as early as the 1790s, “public diplomacy” did not catch on until the 1960s. Prior to that, governments, states, and leaders were clearly concerned with foreign publics, audiences, cultural exchange, or media relations or the other things we now categorize as “public diplomacy,” though there was no distinct term for it. The use of public oration as a diplomatic tool likely predates the use of conventional diplomacy entirely. Diplomatic historians argue that what we now might call public diplomacy was used frequently between civilizations, where a foreign ambassador addressed citizens in a public arena, took questions, and debated. In ancient Greece, ambassadors were chosen not based on their intelligence or ability to negotiate, but rather on their public speaking and debate skills.
As commissioner to France (the precursor title to ambassador), Benjamin Franklin used skilled public oration to appeal to the French public in favor of American independence from Britain. Franklin relished French life, and the French were equally intrigued by this American and what he seemed to represent. He translated this mutual fascination into French support for the colonists in their rebellion against Great Britain, gaining French aid at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 and earning the French the distinction of being called “America’s oldest ally” when it signed an official treaty with the United States in 1778. In securing this alliance, and others that followed, both relationships between governments and relationships between the U.S. government and people of other countries played crucial roles in the development of U.S. foreign policy.
Public diplomacy is diplomacy, first and foremost. In the contemporary environment, where a distinction is made between conventional and public diplomacy, defining the boundaries of public diplomacy and the consequences of these definitions and boundaries matters organizationally, culturally, and operationally.
Frameworks for analyzing instruments of national power
Two categorizations of the instruments of national power are particularly salient for the study of public diplomacy. First is the DIME model (diplomacy, information, military, and economic), commonly used in military and interagency conversations. Second is the distinction between hard and soft power (and later, smart power), coined by Joseph Nye.
DIME Model
The DIME model is a simple framework used to describe four instruments of national power. DIME originally gained traction in military organizations as a way to categorize instruments of national power, recognizing that military power was only one way that a state could achieve effects in the world. The diplomatic instrument focuses on foreign engagement; the information instrument focuses on creating, exploiting, and disrupting knowledge; the military instrument focuses on the use of force by one party in an attempt to impose its will on another; and the economic instrument attempts to further or constrain others’ prosperity.
In reality, these categories introduce as much complexity as they resolve, since they are neither exclusive nor exhaustive. When naval vessels peacefully pass through a contested waterway to support freedom of navigation operations, is the demonstration best understood as using military or diplomatic instruments of power? The answer is, of course, that it is both. The question for public diplomacy is equally complex: is PD best understood as part of the diplomatic or informational instrument of power? Ultimately, this volume argues that modern PD exists at the nexus of the two. PD is diplomacy and it is information, and it must be understood as both.
Just as military might and economic policies can legitimize a nation’s standing on the international stage, public diplomacy is a key element of statecraft. The ways that governments engage with foreign publics and foreign audiences are instrumental in affecting policy outcomes, achieving objectives, creating permissive environments for action, and influencing international systems. Public diplomacy is centered around the ideas of influence and persuasion. It is about building relationships and gaining trust. Without these crucial building blocks, some may argue it is nearly impossible to sustain or build upon a nation’s global influence. Military campaigns must end, so what happens when the soldiers and weapons leave? Economic relationships depend on trust, so what happens when that trust is never established or is broken? Public diplomacy is used as an enduring tool of statecraft and is interwoven with other elements of national power to establish a robust toolbox for competition on the global stage.
Hard, soft, and smart power
The category that has come to be known as “hard power,” so often studied in international relations, is the study of how actors use force, coercion, or payment to get what they want. Force almost always requires the use of offensive military action; brute force is the use of military power to an extent where your opponent has no choice but to concede to the demands you are making. Coercion involves inflicting pain or threatening to inflict future pain (so coercion does sometimes involve the application of force). Pain could come through the use of military force or the application of economic sanctions, for example.
Coercion works by understanding what your adversary values, and then harming or threatening it, so they make a choice that aligns with your desires instead of their own. Payment involves the exchange of currency or other valued items.
Joseph Nye coined the term “soft power” in the late 1980s as a contrast with hard power to define the “ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments.” Soft power arises from the attractiveness of a nation’s culture, political ideas, and polices, and it is rooted in the ability to attract and persuade. Public diplomacy accomplishes its mission in the realm of persuasion and influence, rather than payment and coercion. It is attractive power, by definition.
For the United States, examples of soft power range from films depicting the United States in a favorable light, to the presence of Peace Corps volunteers in a remote foreign village, to USAID providing food and supplies to those in need post-disaster. Each of these examples highlight how America’s culture, people, and moral compass are attractive. Public diplomacy seeks to harness America’s attractiveness to encourage foreign publics to support U.S. foreign policy goals. Soft power has commonly been thought most powerful in helping the United States achieve its most enduring goals of achieving security and prosperity for the United States and its citizens, and expanding the coalition of like-minded individuals and states who espouse its values and the liberal international order. More recently, the United States, and the Department of State in particular, has been working to use public diplomacy and soft power to advance specific policy goals and achieve specific policy objectives, marking something of a strategic and philosophical change in the logic of how the United States understands the function and value of PD.
Proponents of soft power argue that it is underutilized as an instrument of national power, especially by global superpowers such as the United States. They also argue that hard power is too often used as the first or primary instrument of national power, ignoring the effectiveness of other instruments such as diplomacy to achieve goals. In the early 2000s, critics pointed especially to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 as a misplaced application of a hard-power approach to problem solving.
A consensus position, however, emerged: competing in the realm of international relations requires employing both hard and soft power.27 Nye dubbed this smart power: the “capacity of an actor to combine elements of hard power and soft power in ways that are mutually reinforcing such that the actor’s purposes are advanced effectively and efficiently.”28 The U.S.-led Marshall plan and subsequent formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) following World War II provides an excellent example of smart power. The tactful combination of economic empowerment, humanitarian aid, and military cooperation proved successful in creating a stable Europe oriented towards the United States after the devastating war.29 Mixing military power, trade, and diplomacy, and proportionate to the foreign policy goal, is far more effective in the long term than using any one of these instruments on its own.
