Propaganda Vs Public Diplomacy:

Between Theory and Practice

The political international history was driven by different powers that have been changed over time. In the past, the physical power was the focal determinant of a nation’s strength and ability to control. From the sword to bombs, Weapons have been the bone of international political language of the stronger. Nowadays, physical weapons are not enough. The modern international politics has embraced the use of information to support national interests.

The sophisticated use of ‘information’ as a political ‘competitive advantage’ seems to be a new idea; however, Niccolo Machiavelli has mentioned it five centuries ago in his advice to Renaissance princes. The Technological changes through history affected the changes in the use of information in political sphere especially during the World War II and the Cold War that followed, especially between the east and the west (at that time). The electronic changes during and after these periods was spurred by the greater availability of electronic technologies such as radio, television, software and internet. The technological revolution has shaped the way of international politics that is characterized now by the use of information as weapon. Under these enormous changes, foreign politicises of many countries has changed. Nowadays, many big debates have risen about different terms that are related to the foreign politics in general such us propaganda. In this paper we will try to discuss the concept of propaganda as it is used presently.

1. What is the definition of propaganda and public diplomacy?
2. What is the difference between propaganda and public diplomacy in terms of theory and practice in the real world?
3. How can you describe the US foreign policy, it is propaganda or public diplomacy, or both? Why?

What is propaganda?

The funk and Wagnall dictionary defined it in 4 ways:

1. a society of cardinals, the overseers of foreign missions; also the College of Propaganda at Rome founded by Pope Urban VIII in 1627 for education of missionary priests; Sacred College de Propaganda Fide.
2. Hence, any institution or scheme for propagating a doctrine or system.
3. Effort direct systematically toward the gaining of public support for an opinion or a course of action.
4. The principles advanced by propaganda.

The scientific American, repeated the same previous old definitions, moreover it added that that propaganda in it old meaning has perfect legitimacy of human activity. “Any society, whether it is social, religious or political, which is possessed of certain beliefs, and sets out to make them known, either by the spoken or written words, is in practicing propaganda.”

As Edward Bernays said in his book ‘propaganda’ (52), “the modern propaganda is a consistent, enduring effort to create or shape events to influence the relations of the public to an enterprise, idea or group (…) propaganda does exist on all sides of us, and it does change our mental picture of the world”

As defined in the book of Global communication, written by Yahya. R. kamalipour; Propaganda has to do with the use of communication channels, through known persuasive or manipulative techniques, in an attempt to shape or alter public opinion.

The purpose of Propaganda:

The purpose of propaganda is to persuade and convert by using intentionally selective and biased information.

What are the used strategies of Propaganda?

As stated in the book of Global communication, written by Yahya. R. kamalipour; strategies of public diplomacy are:

a. Name-calling: the use of labels to project an idea in a favorable or unfavorable light. Its purpose is also to discourage individuals from examining substantive evidence on an issue.

b. Glittering Generality: the tendency to associate and issue or image with a noble or virtuous term. Purpose is to arouse both faith and respect in listeners and readers

c. Image Transfer: when one takes the power, respect, or good reputation bestowed on an existing entity or concept, and then attempts to share these positive qualities through association with a product, individual, or position, the perpetrator is hoping to benefit from it.

d. Testimonial: when a distinguished or recognized but highly unpopular person is used to cast a product, individual, position in either a positive or negative light.

e. Plain Folks: when a communicator wishes to convince others that they or their ideas are good or valid since they are similar to everyone else, just everyday ordinary people.

f. Card Staking: when a presentation uses a selection of facts and distortions, elucidations and confusions, and both logical and illogical statements.

g. Bandwagon Approach involves utilization of a notion that “everybody is doing it” or “we are al doing it” so that group members are encouraged to just join or follow the crowd.

What is Public Diplomacy?

As argued by Professor Jarol Manheim, Public diplomacy is the management of perceptions” in ways that “facilitate the achievement of a foreign policy objectives.

Diplomat Christopher Ross describes public diplomacy as an art through which practitioners seek support of “carefully targeted sectors of foreign publics” for a government’s “strategic goals.”

As defined in the book of Global communication, written by Yahya. R. kamalipour; Public diplomacy became very closely associated with activities emanating from the United State Information Agency since that organization used the term when describing its mission.

Since 1999, the USIA was disbanded; however, the concept of the public diplomacy continued and is largely embraced in the United State Department of State. The objectives of those involved in public affairs communication are to inform and influence public opinion intentionally.

To understand the definition of public diplomacy, we have to look at it from practical perspective as it was described by the US government itself:

As described by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,

“The time has come to look anew at our institutions of public diplomacy. We must do much more to confront hateful propaganda, dispel dangerous myths and get out the truth.

We must increase our exchanges with the rest of the world. We must work closer than ever with educational institutions, the private sector and nongovernmental organizations and we must encourage our citizens to engage the world to learn foreign languages, to understand different cultures and to welcome others into their homes. And to be successful we must listen. An important part of telling America’s story is learning the stories of others . . . While we must never compromise our security, we must never close ourselves to the rest of the world . . . I have said the time for diplomacy is now. Well the time for public diplomacy reform is also now.”

We can conclude three main ideas that can define the modern Public Diplomacy from an American perspective:

1. To increase the exchanges with the rest of the world.

2. To listen

3. To be close with educational institutions, the private sector and nongovernmental organizations.

What is the definition of propaganda and public diplomacy?

According to an E-interview, done with Dr. Jack Kalpakien, Propaganda is another term for political advertising on behalf of the state or a political movement. Public diplomacy is a somewhat different. It is when a state tries to explain, justify and promote its perspective to non-citizens. Dr Jack Kalpakien added that all countries, including the US, practice both.

Just to reflect on the definition of both terms from a professor of political science we still have this overlap between the two definitions. Dr Jack Kalpakien, said that propaganda is political advertising, on the other hand; he said that Public diplomacy is a somewhat different. It is when a state tries to explain, justify and promote its perspective to non-citizens.

So what is difference between advertising and promotion? Maybe if we can find the difference between then we would then understand the difference between propaganda and public diplomacy.

According to the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, advertising is: ‘Make an announcement in a public place; describe or present goods publicly with a view to promoting sales.’ Right after that we find advertisement defined as: ‘A public announcement (formerly by the town-crier, now usually in newspapers, on posters, by television, etc.).’

If advertising is meant to encourage consumers to ‘turn towards’ a brand, what is the traditional function of promotion? As found in the New Shorter OED, a promotion is ‘helps forward’. This definition is quite consistent with the Latin root of promotion, ‘promovere’. Roughly translated, this means ‘move forward’.

Therefore, the basic difference between advertising and promotion is that advertising is strategically more long term, ‘turning’ the consumer towards the brand by creating positive brand attitude, while promotion is more short term, focusing on immediate sales.

Based on these two definitions of advertising and promotion, and as Propaganda is related to advertising, while public diplomacy is related to promotion; we can say that propaganda has a long term objective in order to persuade and change peoples minds, while public diplomacy deals short objective to achieve the same goal.

In brief, both public and diplomacy meant to change people’s mind and behaviors to serve a country interest. As discussed in the book of Global communication, written by Yahya R. kamalipour; the best public diplomacy practitioners know that listening and dialogue are keys to persuasion. Therefore it can be a face of propaganda. The key is the communicator’s intent in such a process, public diplomacy is therefore nothing more than Propaganda.

For the American government, as stated by Condoleezza Rice, “We must do much more to confront hateful propaganda, dispel dangerous myths and get out the truth”. For the American government, theoretically, the propaganda is manipulating tool that is based on myths and lies. However, public diplomacy consists of telling the Truth.

How can you describe the US foreign policy, it is propaganda or public diplomacy, or both? Why?
According to an E-interview, done with Dr. Jack Kalpakien; Dr. Jack Kalpakien thinks that all countries, including the US, practice both. Which as was stated before, as we find and overlap between the two concepts in terms of theory. Still we find a larger overlap between them in terms of practice. If the United States’ government limits the difference only in an ‘ethical aspect’, so what is this differentiation in theory is practiced in real world??

1. The overlap in terms of theory:

· Both propaganda and public diplomacy have the same purpose: persuading people to follow certain policy or not contradict this policy.

· The both can use the same strategies but without telling lies in ‘public diplomacy’:

i. Name-calling:

ii. Glittering Generality:

iii. Image Transfer:

iv. Testimonial:

v. Plain Folks:

vi. Card Staking: ( except using illogical statements)

vii. Bandwagon Approach

2. The overlap in terms of practice:

well in the real world we find that the both terms aims to persuade using different means even if these mean can be misleading and unethical.

Lies in American point of view, can be replaced by ‘perception of truth’, so this government can hide the truth or changes under the umbrella of the misleading term ‘perception of truth’:

Real examples of American propaganda or public diplomacy:

As a real example of public diplomacy of the US, let’s take the example of the American embassy in Morocco.

The American embassy is one of the most active embassies in morocco. It was established since the independence of Morocco in 1956. The history of the Moroccan American relationship was characterized by mutual friendship. After the 11^th of September, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan; the American image in the Arab world has changed. The hatred toward the United States has risen among Arab and Islamic peoples. The American foreign policy of the United States has been trying to change this image and decrease the hatred by following various communication strategies. The American embassy in morocco is one of the best case studies in using these communication strategies. Nevertheless; these communication strategies are seen by many people as propaganda no more no less.

Can these communication strategies be considered as a part of public diplomacy or as propaganda?

Back to the main three means of public diplomacy that are mentioned by Condoleezza Rice:

• To increase the exchanges with the rest of the world.
• To listen
• To be close with educational institutions, the private sector and nongovernmental organizations.

To analyse these three main ideas, let’s first start by breaking down the sentences. Let’s start with first sentence:

• To increase the exchanges with the rest of the world: well the first part of the sentence (increase the exchange) and the second part (with the rest of the world) contradict themselves in terms of meaning and interpretations. Exchange means according to Merriam Webmaster dictionary, is the act of giving or taking one thing in return for another. To perform the act of exchanging, it is necessary that the both parties should stand in equal position and give and take the same amount of the thing. This act cannot be occurring correctly in the real world since the parties are not equal. Also, we usually find that the stronger take more than it gives. The world ‘rest’ in playing a big controversy. Rest means the remaining; this language emphasizes the importance of the core POWER (USA), and the remaining of the world which is the semi periphery and periphery. This interpretation can be inspired from the use of the word in the book of ‘Huntington’ The Clash of Civilization. Hence, the language itself can be considered as arrogant and imperialistic. So, how can we perceive any communication strategy that is based on such language??? It this can be considered public diplomacy or propaganda????
• To listen and to be close to be close with educational institutions, the private sector and nongovernmental organizations: Does American government listen to others???? As Naeom Chomsky mentioned in his article, “Propaganda, American-style”, ‘The Vietnam War is a classic example of America's propaganda system. In the mainstream media--the New York Times, CBS, and so on-- there was a lively debate about the war. It was between people called "doves" and people called "hawks." The hawks said, "If we keep at it we can win." The doves said, "Even if we keep at it, it would probably be too costly for use, and besides, maybe we're killing too many people." Both sides agreed on one thing. We had a right to carry out aggression against South Vietnam. Doves and hawks alike refused to admit that aggression was taking place. They both called our military presence in Southeast Asia the defense of South Vietnam, substituting "defense" for "aggression" in the standard Orwellian manner. In reality, we were attacking South Vietnam just as surely as the Soviets later attacked Afghanistan.’
• The same example can be shown in the Iraqi war, where the United States didn’t listen to other voices including, nongovernmental organizations, in the world that were against this war. It had even violated the legitimacy of the United Nations in deciding in such issues.

People around the world including Moroccans, which are described as ‘rest of the world’ will be sceptical about any public diplomacy strategy and see at propaganda. Moreover, these people think that this propaganda is useless if the American foreign policy doesn’t change toward the Arab and Islamic world.

Conclusion:

One of the battle places of propaganda is the media where most of the public diplomacy practitioners or propagandists find a suitable place to execute their job. As was stated by Mohamad Abdssalam (phone interview), who is BBC and Reuters journalist, however is the news agency or the channel, any channel might serve each of the propagandists parties. To reflect more on this issue I invite you to share with me this video that was sent to me by Al Jazeera Journalist, Yosri Fouda: