Differences and Similarities Between Soft Power and Public Diplomacy

DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SOFT POWER AND PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Institution
Due Date
Differences and Similarities between Soft Power and Public Diplomacy
Introduction
For most people in the world, the United States of America is one of the best countries in the world economically, socially, culturally, and even politically. The image a majority of the people in the world have of the U.S. is one of it being the land where dreams come true. For the most part, the U.S. has done incredible marketing to help propel itself to its current position. Through the country’s media powerhouses with a global reach, the U.S. has managed to broadcast its uniqueness and power to all and sundry, and this has worked to create a perception that it is indeed the best country in the world. However, the U.S. foreign policy is abhorred by a significant number of countries in the world. Countries in the Arab world, some in Asia, Africa, and other parts of the world, find the demands placed upon them by the U.S. to be against what they stand for. Rugh (2017, p. 2) writes about the contrasting feelings that people, especially in the Arab world, hold regarding the U.S. He notes that the U.S. has managed to use soft power and public diplomacy to create a simply irresistible narrative. On the other hand, its foreign policy happens to be quite controversial and hence the divided opinion on the country. Therefore, with reference to the United States and China’s approach and use of soft power and public diplomacy, this report examines the differences and similarities between soft power and public diplomacy.
Definition and Conceptualization of the Relationship between Public Diplomacy and Soft Power
Power can be described as the ability to influence action or behavior. Nye (2008, p. 94) defines power as “the ability to affect others to obtain your desired outcomes.” Therefore, in any instance where power is used to affect or influence the course of events, it must be done towards the attainment of a particular goal. While using power, one can either choose to use force or coercion, or manipulative means that will lead to the attainment of the same desired goals. According to Smith-Windsor (2000, p. 52), the type of power where one makes use of force or coercion is known as hard power. On the other hand, soft power entails the use of a country’s or a person’s attractions to influence people’s opinions or actions. Nye (2008, 96) notes that a country’s soft power depends on three things, including culture, political values, and the country’s foreign policy. These sentiments are echoed by Smith-Windsor (2000, p. 52), who indicates that soft power is dictated by the attractiveness of a country’s culture and technology, as well as the ability of a country to project the same to the world. A good example of a country that uses soft power to influence opinion and action in the world is the U.S. As the country that is home to media outlets like CNN, it has become increasingly easy for the U.S. to market itself and to make use of soft power to influence or affect the world.
Public diplomacy is not the same as soft power. However, according to Snow (2020, p. 3), there is a close relationship between public diplomacy and power. Snow notes that public diplomacy is not a new concept, but it has morphed into something different from what it used to be in the past. Initially, Snow (2000, p. 6) indicates that public diplomacy used to be government-to-government, where one country seeks to convince another of its foreign policies and its implications. However, Snow notes that this has changed to involve the governments and private individuals and groups that seek to influence opinion or attitudes. According to Nye (2008, p. 101), public diplomacy entails three crucial things that are prerequisites for public diplomacy to be successful. The first one is daily communication, which mainly entails the aspect of breaking down the aspect or ideas of foreign policy. The second one entails strategic communication, which can be said to be the marketing stage, where political advertising happens (Nye, 2008, p. 102). Lastly, there is the development of lasting relationships, which now form the glue or that which holds the relationships.
A thin line separates public diplomacy and soft power. However, the two terms are quite different and relate in the sense that one uses the other. The relationship between the two lies in the fact that public diplomacy makes use of soft power to attain a similar goal as soft power. Public diplomacy focuses on the aspects of culture, values, and political attractions deemed positive to enhance a nation’s appeal (Rugh, 2017, p. 2). Farwell (2012, p. 48) goes to the extent of calling public diplomacy a tool. This means that it may not be the main element, but it serves to attain the purposes of the main element, which in this case is soft power. Therefore, the relationships between public diplomacy and soft power lie in public diplomacy seeking to enhance or promote soft power.
Are PD and SP the same thing?
Public diplomacy and soft power are not interchangeable terms but just relatable. While public diplomacy and soft power are closely related, they are not similar. Unlike hard power, soft power is based on indirect behavioral influences. Employing soft power means using culture, values, and ideology to direct other nations instead of confrontation. Soft power forces nations to move towards interdependence. Similarly, public diplomacy prioritizes human interactions. Like propaganda, public diplomacy uses manipulation, but far less than the former. Diplomacy to the publics views the target audience as a proactive consumer receiving messages from the sender. The source of the messages can be the public affairs department or non-governmental organizations. At the same time, the proactive consumer also has an opportunity to respond to the same issues, hence facilitating a two-way exchange of ideas. Public diplomacy can be viewed as gentler propaganda aimed at changing the perspective of other nations (Gilboa, 2008, pg. 56). In both cases, human interactions are critical for the success of a nation. The ultimate aim is to influence foreign countries without coercion and manipulation. Additionally, both public diplomacy and soft power can be done by ordinary citizens. For instance, American celebrities export their culture to other nations without the government's intervention. While the government may put measures to make cultural exchange easy, it is normal for citizens to be involved in creating soft power. In the same way, ordinary citizens can engage in public diplomacy by blogging. Here, an individual can choose to write articles aimed at influencing the citizens of another country to favor the host country's policies.
PD a strategy; SP a resource
Soft power is a significant resource that any country has at its disposal. According to Nye, soft power rests on three main resources; culture, political values, and foreign policies (2008, pg. 94). Regarding culture, a country uses soft power in areas where its culture is attractive to others. For instance, many people worldwide generally admire American cultures like freedom, individualism and capitalism. For political values, a nation lives up to the outlined values at home and abroad. Regarding foreign policies, soft power is a resource where others consider the policies legitimate and with moral authority. Any government can choose how to utilize the resource at its disposal to influence citizens of other nations. It is up to the government to decide the most effective way of utilizing soft power to its advantage. Sometimes, soft power as a resource does not always guarantee positive results. For instance, sound foreign policies may be important in attracting the foreign publics. However, the amount of money used in broadcasting the foreign policies will not guarantee success where the target nations are sceptical about the particular country. China has a huge potential for generating soft power. However, this may not be realized considering its negative image in public as an authoritarian country. Public diplomacy, unlike soft power, is the strategy of implementing soft power. As indicated, the mere availability of soft power is not a direct ticket for a country to influence others. In public democracy, a nation comes up with various sponsored efforts to communicate directly with foreign publics. The ultimate aim is to convince the targeted sectors regarding the country’s foreign opinion. Various approaches are utilized to ensure the su...