[Smart Q&A: Jan Melissen] Public Diplomacy in a Changing World Order and Korea's Challenges

Dr. Jan Melissen holds a Ph.D. from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands and is currently the Head of Research at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael” and a Professor of Diplomacy at the University of Antwerp, Belgium.

Public Diplomacy in a Changing World Order

“Post-9/11 discussions on public diplomacy have led to changes in overall diplomacy: ① focus on networks, ② engagement with diverse actors, ③ reduced state-centricity”

“Since the 2008 global economic crisis, there has been increased interest in utilizing public diplomacy to contribute to national interests”

“The scope of public diplomacy has further expanded due to the growing role of social media”

Public diplomacy began to attract attention from governments and academia following the September 11 attacks in 2001. Although theoretical discussions on public diplomacy within academia are still insufficient, and it remains a field requiring much more research, with over 150 ways to define the concept, the rise of public diplomacy is fundamentally altering diplomacy as a whole. Specifically, phenomena such as a focus on network building, increased engagement with non-state actors, and weakened state-centricity are appearing across states' diplomatic behaviors. This signifies a shift in diplomacy towards focusing on broader societal relations beyond state-to-state interactions. Furthermore, as these changes in diplomatic behavior are observed not only in democratic states but also in authoritarian ones, public diplomacy has now become a global phenomenon.

The 2008 global economic crisis prompted countries to pay greater attention to more active ways of utilizing public diplomacy. As the focus shifted to responding to crisis situations, interest grew in how public diplomacy could be leveraged to enhance national interests. For instance, there emerged a trend of pursuing public diplomacy with a focus on the potential to expand trade surpluses through improving a nation's international image.

The recent development of social media has contributed to the expansion of public diplomacy. In an era where personal stories are easily shared through blogs and Twitter, opportunities for more direct and intimate contact with individual citizens of other countries have expanded, which was difficult to achieve in the past when public diplomacy was primarily conducted through embassies.

Public Diplomacy in East Asia

“Both the US and China invest heavily in public diplomacy, but China's efforts will inevitably face limitations due to its authoritarian government structure”

“Middle powers should pursue enhanced public diplomacy by building regional networks”

“Characteristics of public diplomacy in East Asia: ① focus on building friendly relations, ② building inclusive networks, ③ dissemination and sharing of ideas”

The countries investing the most in public diplomacy are great powers such as the United States and China. However, as long as China maintains its authoritarian government system, its efforts to strengthen public diplomacy are bound to face limitations. This is particularly true given that civil society groups are actors as important as the government in public diplomacy. Public diplomacy operates not like a rigid 'waltz' danced by elite bureaucrats of various countries, but more like an improvisational 'jazz' dance where diverse non-state actors participate in their respective roles. The voluntary participation of these diverse actors plays a crucial role in enhancing the credibility and legitimacy of public diplomacy. In this context, China's public diplomacy, lacking the element of voluntary participation from civil society groups, is inevitably facing limitations. Furthermore, the inability to present a globally resonant "China Story" is also a problem. China's experience, lacking elements such as political reform and human rights beyond economic development, makes it difficult to garner transnational support.

Middle powers, due to their distinct roles compared to great powers, must enhance public diplomacy in ways different from great powers. A prime example is the establishment of transparent regional networks. Through the process of building such networks, middle powers can form alliances and secure opportunities to reflect their voices in the international community. Indonesia's Bali Democracy Forum serves as a representative example.

Public diplomacy in East Asia exhibits several important characteristics. First, unlike Western countries that have focused on presenting and promoting a positive image of themselves through public diplomacy, East Asian countries have pursued public diplomacy with a focus on relations with partner countries. Remembering that building long-term friendly relations is the core of public diplomacy, this is an area where Western countries need to learn from the East Asian experience. Second, as East Asia is a region where countries of varying levels of power and political systems converge, it understands the necessity of a networked approach better than other regions. Networks are inherently built on inclusiveness; therefore, East Asian countries are better positioned to effectively employ public diplomacy than Western countries, which have historically operated international organizations as exclusive clubs. Third, East Asian countries, including Korea, tend to strengthen public diplomacy based on the proposal and sharing of ideas.

Public Diplomacy in Korea

“Enhancing Korea's status and role in East Asia and globally: ① proposing creative ideas, ② utilizing attractive cultural heritage, ③ playing a cautious intermediary role”

“Domestic political efforts to strengthen public diplomacy: ① enhancing two-way communication between government and civil society, ② boosting national confidence”

Countries such as Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey, and Korea, which have garnered new international attention following the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and have been included in the G20, have opportunities to elevate their international standing through public diplomacy. For Korea to strengthen its public diplomacy at both the East Asian and global levels, several efforts are crucial. First, based on knowledge diplomacy, Korea needs to increase its voice in global idea networks by proposing creative ideas on global issues such as development cooperation, the environment, and non-proliferation. Second, as evidenced by the Korean Wave (Hallyu), Korea possesses attractive cultural capabilities stemming from its long history; specific measures are needed to consider how this cultural power can contribute to enhancing Korea's soft power. Third, when Korea seeks to play a role as an intermediary or broker in the process of building global networks, it is necessary to approach cautiously to avoid being perceived as 'aggressive' by regional great powers due to an overemphasis on the active role of middle powers.

Several efforts are also needed at the domestic political level to strengthen public diplomacy. First, given the importance of civil society's role for the successful development of public diplomacy, the government must enhance two-way communication with civil society groups to allow for more active participation of civil society in national foreign policy projects. Second, national confidence must be boosted. Koreans seem to have an overly critical image of their own country. The government needs to make multifaceted efforts to foster greater pride in the economic, political, and cultural achievements Korea has made to date. ■

The East Asia Institute (EAI) is receiving financial support as a core research institution selected for the MacArthur Foundation's "Asia Security Initiative" program. EAI has been conducting Smart Q&A, a video interview series with domestic and international experts, aiming to provide timely and in-depth analysis of current issues through question-and-answer sessions with experts in relevant fields. This manuscript was compiled by Kim Yang-gyu, a researcher at EAI's Center for Asian Security Studies, and Stephen Ranger, a researcher, based on interview content. The opinions expressed are those of the individual expert and do not necessarily reflect the views of the East Asia Institute. Please cite the source when quoting from Smart Q&A.