Russian Public Diplomacy

From USSR to the Russian Federation

Marina M. Lebedeva

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000389944
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Russian History
• Index: History

Public diplomacy is widely used in the contemporary world, and this book is devoted to its use and study in Russia.

It explores how, even though scientific diplomacy and people's diplomacy were used in the USSR, the ideas of public diplomacy were not in demand in Russia in the 1990s. However, following the United States, which turned to the policy after the tragic events of 9/11, Russia also began to develop its own. The author explores how the need for public diplomacy is reflected in the official documents of the Russian Federation and discusses the important step of building new institutions for this purpose in Russia. She analyzes how the development of the practice has led to its study, with Russian scholars focusing mainly on the tools and approaches of implementing public diplomacy by various states. The book discusses the relationship between public diplomacy and soft power and compares Russian approaches with those available in worldwide practice and theory.

This book is intended primarily for students and researchers of international affairs specializing in Russian foreign policy and/or soft power issues. It will also be of interest to practitioners in public diplomacy, such as ministers of foreign affairs, NGOs, and the media.

1 Introduction

The transforming modern world and public diplomacy

The modern world is undergoing drastic changes. This fact is reflected both in the speeches of political leaders from various countries of the world and in the academic literature. However, the question of what exactly is being transformed remains debatable. Most researchers proceed from the assumption that the transformation of the modern world is due to changes in interstate relations after the end of the Cold War [see, e.g., Kissinger, 2014]. Indeed, interstate relations are changing, being an important structural element of the political organization of the world. But this is not the only element that is changing. Political transformation in the modern world covers at least three levels of the political organization of the world: (1) the Westphalian system [see Keohane & Nye, 1971]; (2) the system of interstate relations; and (3) the political systems of various countries, many of which have undergone changes at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. The transformation of each level intensifies the changes taking place in the other two. As a result, the phenomenon of the “perfect storm” is formed [Lebedeva, 2016]. Changes in the political organization of the world mean that an increasing number of actors are involved in public diplomacy, and the tool of public diplomacy is becoming more important for states.

Simultaneously with changes in the political organization of the world, the role of social and humanitarian resources and, consequently, their means of influence, increases [Lebedeva, 2018]. This is due to the importance of the human factor and human capital in the modern world. It is the human being who is now at the center of economic, social, and political development. Many researchers, including Russian ones, pay attention to this aspect [see, e.g., Gromoglasova, 2018; Zonova, 2004].

In addition, the strengthening of the role of social and humanitarian resources is associated with the development of communication and information technologies, which make it possible for billions of people to search for and obtain information, as well as communicate. As a result, in the practical sphere, much attention has been paid to the problems of health, tourism, the fight against poverty, etc. Accordingly, in the scientific field, the number of studies in the humanitarian and social fields is increasing, and concepts that are directly related to the social and humanitarian spheres are appearing (in particular, the concept of “soft power” by Nye [2002]). Of course, military-political and political-economic resources do not reduce their “weight” in world politics. In this case, we are talking about the fact that social and humanitarian means of influence become no less effective than other means. Moreover, social and humanitarian means “connect” to other means of influence, including military ones, often reinforcing them. An example of this is hybrid wars, when various means of influencing the enemy are used, as well as propaganda, fake news, etc.

Public diplomacy develops in the context of changes in world politics and under the influence of these changes. Because public diplomacy is a part of a social and humanitarian resource, its role in the modern world as a means of influence increases dramatically. At the same time, along with public diplomacy, other tools related to social and humanitarian impact are widely used throughout the world, including propaganda, strategic communication, and the formation of national branding. All states use the entire arsenal of tools for influence. In this case, the focus of analysis is precisely public diplomacy. At the same time, it is essential to highlight the characteristic features of public diplomacy that distinguish it from other tools.

Russia is currently active on the world stage. The analysis of Russian public diplomacy will allow us to better understand how various state and non-state structures are involved in shaping the world’s perceptions by Russian public diplomacy and its implementation.

Finally, there is another reason for the interest in Russia and, in particular, Russian public diplomacy. The world is becoming more and more complex, and non-Western states and citizens of the non-Western world are actively involved in it. This explains the increased interest that is now shown in non-Western approaches, concepts, and theories [see, e.g., Acharya, 2016].

In recent years, articles on Russian public diplomacy have appeared, written mainly by foreign scholars. In this case, the focus of attention is on Russian public diplomacy – how it is built and studied within Russia. The book emphasizes public diplomacy in general and particularly in Russia. The public diplomacy toolkit is largely universal. However, how it is applied, which technologies are primarily used, and how public diplomacy is combined with other means of influence are specific to each state.

The concept of “public diplomacy” came to Russia, as well as to many other countries, from the English-language literature. Therefore, before considering Russian public diplomacy, it is important to analyze what is generally understood by public diplomacy.

2 Public diplomacy and the reasons for its development in the world in the 21st century

Public diplomacy: definition and understanding

Public diplomacy, along with soft power issues, has become one of the most discussed topics in world politics and, in particular, in the theory of diplomacy. Both theoretical issues and the practice of using public diplomacy in various countries [see, e.g., The New Public Diplomacy … , 2005], including Russia [see, e.g., Simons, 2014], are studied. Public diplomacy is becoming an integral part of world politics, and its analysis makes it possible to better understand both world politics itself and the foreign policy of various countries. However, public diplomacy is understood in different ways. Russia is no exception in this regard.

The concept of public diplomacy,¹ which appeared in the United States in the middle of the 20th century at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University thanks to E. Gullion, is defined as follows:

Public diplomacy deals with the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies … encompasses dimensions of foreign relations beyond traditional diplomacy, the cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries; the interaction of private groups and interests in one country with those of another.²

A similar definition is given by the US Department of State: “Public diplomacy refers to government-sponsored programs intended to inform or influence public opinion in other countries; its chief instruments are publications, motion pictures, cultural exchanges, radio and television” [Dictionary … , 1987].

In turn, the book edited by Snow and Taylor describes public diplomacy as the impact of one state on the society of another (other) state [Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, 2008]. A close definition is given by the Russian researcher A. V. Dolinskiy. He proposes to understand public diplomacy as a means by which the government of one country tries to influence the society of another so that it, in turn, affects its government [Dolinskiy, 2013a]. Thus, in fact, the definition of public diplomacy as the impact of the state on the societies of foreign countries has become widespread.

From the previous definitions it follows that, first, public diplomacy is an activity carried out or directed by the state, and second, the channels for implementing public diplomacy can be twofold: through officials (e.g., a representative of a state department to hold a press conference for foreign journalists) and through non-state actors (nongovernmental organizations [NGOs], universities, theaters, etc.) [Lebedeva, 2017b]. The main emphasis, however, is often placed on non-state actors.

Initially, US public diplomacy was focused on countering communist propaganda. In this regard, American scholars usually contrasted public diplomacy with the activities of the USSR in the international arena. In the 1990s, interest in public diplomacy declined significantly, since the end of the collapse of the USSR gave rise to the illusion of the end of any significant value contradictions in the world, which was most clearly reflected in Fukuyama’s article on the end of history [1989]. The beginning of the 21st century was marked by the revival of public diplomacy in the world. In many ways, the United States initiated this revival. There are several reasons for the new stage in the development of public diplomacy. First of all, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 showed that the value contradictions in the world have not disappeared. The reaction of many people in the Middle East to the attacks on 9/11 made clear that millions of people had a negative perception of US policy. Obviously, it was impossible to correct the negative image of the United States only by means of traditional diplomacy. To solve this problem, representatives of the American elite again turned to the means of public diplomacy. Therefore, having experienced a decline in the 1990s under the influence of the illusion of “the end of history”, public diplomacy was revived with renewed vigor after the tragedy of 9/11 [Melissen, 2005; Dolinskiy, 2011a].

At the same time, at the beginning of the 21st century, other reasons for turning to the tools of public diplomacy are directly due to the processes of transformation of the political organization of the world, especially the Westphalian system. Thus, the development of communication and information technologies has led to a sharp intensification of interaction between people in the world beyond their national borders. As a result, non-state actors entered the world arena en masse and joined public diplomacy as its subjects and objects.

In the 21st century, not only has the number of non-state actors in the world increased significantly [Gotz, 2011], but their interaction with states also increased. Social and humanitarian resources are increasingly being used by states to influence foreign audiences. Finally, Nye’s concept of soft power, centered on the idea of attractiveness [1990], played its role in the revival of public diplomacy.

New public diplomacy and propaganda

New realities of the 21st century – the development of communication and information technologies; a sharp surge in the activity of non-state actors due to the opportunities that these technologies have opened up; blurred boundaries between internal and external information spaces, etc. – all led to the creation of a new public diplomacy, the name of which has been fixed in scientific research [see, e.g., The New Public Diplomacy … , 2005; Cull, 2009]. In addition, public diplomacy has become widespread outside the United States: it covers almost all countries of the world, including Russia.

New phenomena have also appeared in public diplomacy. If earlier public diplomacy was considered as a means of only the state, nowadays public diplomacy is becoming a means of influence of international organizations and unions. Melissen wrote in 2005 that public diplomacy is developing. And in the modern world, the European Union and the UN are successfully demonstrating the capabilities of supranational public diplomacy in action [Melissen, 2005].

One more important point characterizes the modern new public diplomacy: it involves not just influencing the society of another state, but also interacting with it, that is, through dialogue [Melissen, 2005]. An indication of dialogue as a distinctive feature of public diplomacy is also contained in the study by Russian authors Kornilov and Makarychev, who write, “soft power is not a unilateral tool to coerce others and in this respect it differs from hard power or propaganda” [2015, p. 239].

The manifestation of this dialogue is observed through the official and unofficial channels of the implementation of public diplomacy. It is no accident that social networks have developed rapidly in the framework of public diplomacy. Of course, there are many examples of public diplomacy where such a dialogue is absent. But then the question arises about its effectiveness in modern conditions.

As an attribute of public diplomacy, it is also indicated that traditional diplomacy was characterized by the interaction between the state and society (government to people, or G2P), while the new diplomacy was the interaction between people from different countries (people to people, or P2P) [Snow, 2010]. In addition, such a characteristic of new public diplomacy as the use of network interaction openness is noted [Zaharna, 2007].

Due to the emergence of the concept of soft power, public diplomacy has become seen as a tool of soft power and in this sense has become a counter to propaganda [see, e.g., The New Public Diplomacy … , 2005]. However, propaganda, as well as public diplomacy, involves influencing the audience. Thus, Jowett and O’Donnel emphasize that propaganda and be...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• 1 Introduction: the transforming modern world and public diplomacy
• 2 Public diplomacy and the reasons for its development in the world in the 21st century
• 3 Formation and development of Russian public diplomacy
• 4 Russian studies of public diplomacy in the 2000s
• 5 Conclusion
• References
• Index