TY - JOUR
T1 - New Public Diplomacy in the New Millennium
AU - Yenigun, M. Cuneyt
AU - Yari, Houchang
AU - Al Maani, Abdullah
N1 - Albishri, O., Tarasevich, S., Proverbs, P., Kiousis, S. K., & Alahmari, A. (2019). Mediated public diplomacy in the digital age: Exploring the Saudi and the U.S. governments’ agendabuilding during Trump’s visit to the Middle East. Public Relations Review, 45(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101820 Amirbek, A., & Ydyrys, K. (2014). Education and Soft Power: Analysis as an Instrument of Foreign Policy. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 514–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.428 Ayhan, K. J. (2019). Boundaries of Public Diplomacy and Nonstate Actors: A Taxonomy of Perspectives. International Studies Perspectives, 20(1), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/eky010
Craig Hayden. (2012). The Rhetoric of Soft Power : Public Diplomacy in Global Contexts. Lexington Books. Fitzpatrick, K.R. (2010). The future of the US public diplomacy; an uncertain fate. Leiden. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Huang Zhao Alexandre& Wang Rui (2020) ‘Panda engagement’ in China’s digital public diplomacy, Asian Journal of Communication, 30:2, 118-140, DOI: 10.1080/01292986.2020.1725075 Golan, G. J., & Viatchaninova, E. (2013). Government Social Responsibility in Public Diplomacy: Russia’s strategic use of advertorials. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 403–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.09.011
Golan, G. J. (2013). An Integrated Approach to Public Diplomacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(9), 1251.
Ingenhoff, D., & Marschlich, S. (2019). Corporate diplomacy and political CSR: Similarities, differences and theoretical implications. Public Relations Review, 45(2), 348–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.01.002
Jia, R., & Li, W. (2020). Public diplomacy networks: China’s public diplomacy communication practices in twitter during Two Sessions. Public Relations Review, 46(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101818
Kim, J. (2016). Public relations and public diplomacy in cultural and educational exchange programs: A coorientational approach to the Humphrey Program. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.09.008
L’Etang, J. (1998). State propaganda and bureaucratic intelligence: The creation of public relations in 20th century Britain. Public Relations Review, 24(4), 413–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80109-X
Mogensen, K. (2017). From public relations to corporate public diplomacy. Public Relations Review, 43(3), 605–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.03.011
Nye, J. S., Jr. (2008). Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311699
Nye, J. S., Jr. (2009). Get Smart- Combining Hard and Soft Power. Foreign Affairs, 88(4), 160– 163. Oleksandr Vysotskyi, & Olha Vysotska. (2020). Technologies of Public Diplomacy. Епістемологічні Дослідження у Філософії, Соціальних і Політичних Науках, 3(1), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.15421/342015
Pacher, A. (2018). The ritual creation of political symbols: International exchanges in public diplomacy. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 20(4), 880–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118786043
Pamment, J. (2014). Articulating influence: Toward a research agenda for interpreting the evaluation of soft power, public diplomacy and nation brands. Public Relations Review, 40(1), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.11.019
Pajtinka, Erik. (2016). Military Diplomacy and Its Present Functions. Security Dimensions.International and National Studies. 2016. 179-194.
Park Se Jung &Lim Yon Soo (2014) Information networks and social media use in public diplomacy: a comparative analysis of South Korea and Japan, Asian Journal of Communication, 24:1, 79-98, DOI: 10.1080/01292986.2013.851724 Sarvestani FatemehShafiee, Ameli Saied Reza &IzadiFoad (2019) Israeli public diplomacy toward the United States: a network and narrative approach, Asian Journal of Communication, 29:2, 181-200, DOI: 10.1080/01292986.2018.1531898
Simons, G. (2014). Russian public diplomacy in the 21st century: Structure, means and message. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 440–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.03.002
Weber, F., & Larsson-Olaison, U. (2017). Corporate social responsibility accounting for arising issues. Journal of Communication Management, 21(4), 370–383. https:// doi.org/10.1108/jcom02-2017-0028.
White, C., & Radic, D. (2014). Comparative public diplomacy: Message strategies of countries in transition. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 459–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.012
Wiseman, G. (2015). Isolate or Engage : Adversarial States, US Foreign Policy, and Public Diplomacy. Stanford University Press.
Yang, A., Klyueva, A., & Taylor, M. (2012). Beyond a dyadic approach to public diplomacy: Understanding relationships in multipolar world. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 652–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.07.005
Yenigun, C., Basoos H., Hassan, G., (2020). Negotiation level between EU and the GCC, International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 14 (11), 6575.https://www.ijicc.net/images/Vol_14/Iss_11/141107_Yenigun_2020_E1_R.pdf
Yenigun, C., (2016) Conflict Resolution for the Middle East: Sectarian Rapprochement, Turkish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 3(2), 13-27. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/articlefile/231834
Yenigun, C., (2016) Evolution Dilemma of the United, International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 5 (1), 65-75file:///C:/Users/cuneyt/Downloads/127Article%20Text-343-1-10-20190122.pdf
Yenigun, C., (2010) Balkan multiculturism: sample to its own and to the EU, European Studies Journal, 1(1), 512 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278023306_Balkan_Multiculturism_Sample_to_Its_ Own_and_to_the_EU
Zaharna, R. S., & Uysal, N. (2016). Going for the jugular in public diplomacy: How adversarial publics using social media are challenging state legitimacy. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 109– 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.07.006 Zhang, J., & Swartz, B. C. (2009). Toward a model of NGO media diplomacy in the Internet age: Case study of Washington Profile. Public Relations Review, 35(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.09.018
PY - 2021/6
Y1 - 2021/6
N2 - The new instruments of public diplomacy are deepening and diversifying in the contemporary world. Today, the range of phenomena that could be used as new tools of public diplomacy has grown. Some of the new instruments in the new millennium could be highlighted as diaspora, international conferences, scholarships, journals, advertorials, towering personalities, sport, dominant culture, relations with Intergovernmental institutions, focus on international civil society groups, news agencies, social media tools, cultural centers, universal kitchen, music and exchange programs, in addition to the older ones.The number of these public diplomacy tools that is updatedin this research is 37 as seen in the figure. Old public diplomacy tools are not easy to reshape or create such as organizing diaspora, flouring your language, kitchen or culture. But majority of the new public diplomacy tools could be created in a mid or short term such as establishing university chairs, television channels, communicating social media groups, organizing frequent international conferences, publishing journals, initiating quality movies and serials and establishing good relations with the international NGOs, CSGs and think-tanks. All of those instruments need money, but this should be perceived as soft power investment.
AB - The new instruments of public diplomacy are deepening and diversifying in the contemporary world. Today, the range of phenomena that could be used as new tools of public diplomacy has grown. Some of the new instruments in the new millennium could be highlighted as diaspora, international conferences, scholarships, journals, advertorials, towering personalities, sport, dominant culture, relations with Intergovernmental institutions, focus on international civil society groups, news agencies, social media tools, cultural centers, universal kitchen, music and exchange programs, in addition to the older ones.The number of these public diplomacy tools that is updatedin this research is 37 as seen in the figure. Old public diplomacy tools are not easy to reshape or create such as organizing diaspora, flouring your language, kitchen or culture. But majority of the new public diplomacy tools could be created in a mid or short term such as establishing university chairs, television channels, communicating social media groups, organizing frequent international conferences, publishing journals, initiating quality movies and serials and establishing good relations with the international NGOs, CSGs and think-tanks. All of those instruments need money, but this should be perceived as soft power investment.
KW - Public Diplomacy, Global Image, Soft Power, New Public Relations, Public Diplomacy Tools
U2 - 10.47750/cibg.2021.27.02.616
DO - 10.47750/cibg.2021.27.02.616
M3 - Article
SN - 1323-6903
VL - 27
SP - 6272
EP - 6282
JO - Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government
JF - Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government
IS - 2
ER -