The role of new public diplomacy in an interstate dialogue

The role of new public diplomacy in an interstate dialogue

Reghina Dimitrisina

Public diplomacy become a well- known definition not only in the circles of the academic debate. This term is a part of a diplomatic reality today. Although, it is a very controversial phenomenon, nobody can deny the fact that this diplomatic practice is a part of a modern world of communication nowadays. It is crucial to understand this term in order to explain better the diplomatic relations and, after all, the interstate communication between Ukraine, Romania and Republic of Moldova.

Of course, a role model in this picture is United States of America. They are the first one who developed this concept not only in the academic field, but also they have put it into practice. However, this does not mean that other states cannot practice this way of diplomatic communication. This research paper is pointing out the importance of public diplomacy in our contemporary world through the present case study: Ukraine, Romania and Republic of Moldova. These countries were chosen not by accident. In this case, we are talking about neighbor states, which increase the level of importance of diplomatic communication between these countries. Moreover, we will analyze the present stage of a diplomatic relations between mentioned countries. In this in this sense we will bring Ukrainian post-Euromaidan perspective and the newly elected Romanian president, Klaus Iohannis. This approach will give us the possibility to emphasize theory in practice and to apply recently added theoretical concepts on the present reality.

1. Theoretical framework

1.1 The concept of public diplomacy

In order to give a proper academic explanation we have first to define the concept of public diplomacy.

Public diplomacy is a new field of practice and scholarship. At the same time, public diplomacy represents a very controversial term in International Relations' field. During decades scholars have been debating and arguing in order to give the most succint and acceptable definiton for public diplomacy. Moreover, nowadays after defining public diplomacy academic debates continues with another step in this domain: can we really accept the existence of a new form of public diplomacy in the 21st century or this is the same old propaganda game conducted by diplomats? Let us clarify this dilemma.

Systematic research of any significant topic first requires a workable and widely accepted definition. Scholars and practitioners have employed a variety of confusing, incomplete, or problematic definitions of public diplomacy. Earlier definitions presented only general statements about goals. A typical statement would describe public diplomacy as «direct communication with foreign peoples, with the aim of affecting their thinking and, ultimately, that of their governments» (Malone 1985, 199). This definition does not say who controls this communication, probably due to the widely held notion in the 1980s that only governments use public diplomacy¹.

Scholars have updated the definition of public diplomacy according to major developments in international relations and communications. For example, Signitzer and Coombs in 1992 argued that PR and public diplomacy are very similar because they seek similar objectives and employ similar tools. They defined public diplomacy as «the way in which both government and private individuals and groups influence directly or indirectly those public attitudes and opinions which bear directly on another government's foreign policy decisions». This innovative definition is important because it recognizes new actors and abolishes the distinction between public diplomacy and PR. It redefines the landscape of international relations by adding non-state actors and reflecting the growing interdependence among all actors².

Jan Melissen in his work «The New Public Diplomacy. Soft Power in International Relations», also highlights a few definitions of public diplomacy. According to his study, Paul Sharp gives perhaps the most succinct definition of public diplomacy in his chapter, where he describes it as `the process by which direct relations with people in a country are pursued to advance the interests and extend the values of those being represented'. It is important also to stress out that large and small non-state actors, and supranational and subnational players develop public diplomacy policies of their own. Under media-minded Kofi Annan, the UN shows supranational public diplomacy in action, and Barroso's European Commission has given top priority to the EU's public communication strategy³.

As a diplomatic method, public diplomacy is far from uniform and some public campaigns have little to do with international advocacy. As mentioned above, public diplomacy is increasingly prominent in bilateral relations but can also be actively pursued by international organizations. Public diplomacy's national variant is more competitive, whereas multilateral public diplomacy can be seen as a more cooperative form of engagement with foreign publics. Referring to the latter, Mark Leonard rightly suggests that there is little advantage in making, for instance, civil society-building or the promotion of good governance an activity explicitly coming from one single country. Yet there are other unconventional forms of public diplomacy. A political leader may even engage in public diplomacy in defense of a foreign counterpart's international reputation. This was the case in 2004 when Tony Blair, Gerhard Schroder and other heads of government visited Libyan leader Qaddafi in an ostentatious show of support of this former rogue state leader, who was until recently branded as an international outlaw and exponent of state terrorism. It is not the purpose here to list unusual displays of public diplomacy, but an interesting one deserves mention: the intentional divulging of bad news, such as the deliberate spreading of news about one's own country that is bound to be received abroad as an adverse develop- ment⁴.

Public diplomacy should of course not be developed regardless of a country's foreign policy, and it should be in tune with medium-term objectives and long-term aims. Like any other communication strategy, public diplomacy builds on trust and credibility, and it often works best with a long horizon.

As we can observe from the theoretical description below, public diplomacy plays a crucial role in an interstate dialogue. Besides its institutional importance, this phenomenon emphasize also the role of communication and culture in promoting national values abroad.

1.2 New Public Diplomacy (NPD)

At the beginning of this century, scholars and practitioners have begun to employ the term «new public diplomacy» (NPD).

As Jan Melissen stated in his work, the events of 11 September 2001 triggered a global debate on public diplomacy. Managing the public perception of their state has become an issue in foreign ministries from all countries, ranging from Canada to New Zealand and from Argentina to Mongolia. Many ministries of foreign affairs now develop a public diplomacy policy of their own, and few would like to be caught out without at least paying lip service to the latest fashion in the conduct of international relations. Their association with public diplomacy can be seen as a symptom of the rise of soft power in international relations or, at another level, as the effect of broader processes of change in diplomatic practice, calling for transparency and transnational collaboration. The new public diplomacy is thus much more than a technical instrument of foreign policy. It has in fact become part of the changing fabric of international relations. Both small and large countries, whether under democratic or authoritarian regimes, and including the most affluent and those that can be counted among the world's poorest nations have in recent years displayed a great interest in public diplomacy. Foreign publics now matter to practitioners in a way that was unthinkable 25 years ago⁵.

In the current preoccupation with public diplomacy, stimulated by the post-11 September security environment, there is a real danger of confusing its varying manifestations. To a degree, this confusion reflects a misunderstanding of what soft power is - and how it relates to other modes of power. Public diplomacy in its state-based `strategic' guise is a more sophisticated variant of a well-established idea - namely that `publics' matter to governments as tools of national foreign policy. In this sense, public diplomacy is hardly a new paradigm of international politics but a strategy located within a hierarchical image of how those politics are configured and the information flows underpinning them. At the same time, however, governments are reworking their public diplomacy strategies in a changing milieu of world politics, within which access to modes of communication with publics around the world have become of prime importance to all categories of international actor. This is redrawing the environment in which much contemporary diplomacy is now conducted, bringing the diplomat's traditional skills to the management of complex policy networks. In short, public diplomacy is now part of the fabric of world politics wherein NGOs and other non-state actors seek to project their message in the pursuit of policy goals. Image creation and management is a key resource and one where non-state actors may have an advantage, helping to explain why the more traditional, hierarchical concept of strategic public diplomacy often fails to achieve its goals⁶.

In a fast changing present world, it is clear that this concept achieved a new stage in its definition. From the perspective of diplomatic studies, one premise of this analysis is that public diplomacy can only be understood if analyzed in the context of change in the wider process of diplomatic practice. One interesting observation here, in the recent evolution of public diplomacy is that NPD is becoming less national, not only in terms of the actors involved but even when considering the themes that states pick to tell their story.

Perhaps the greatest chasm between the perspective on public diplomacy of practitioners and early twenty-first century scholars is that scholars implicitly play down the connection between public diplomacy and power in international relations. Scholars who are intrigued by the New Public Diplomacy tend to concentrate more on public diplomacy techniques and they seem to have a tacit consensus that public diplomacy is a good thing⁷.

Methodology. For this study, we have chosen the research method of content analysis on the documents. These documents are materialized through the list of press releases and Presidential official statements regarding diplomacy and cooperation between Ukraine, Romania and Republic of Moldova. As one of the most used methods, content analysis is considered as an objective, systematic and quantitative description of any symbolic behavior. It is placed somewhere at the border between qualitative and quantitative research, being able to provide both qualitative and quantitative data⁸. Content analysis means a summary or overview of the main ideas of a document. We chose this method because this is the most relevant to the present research endeavor and the best way to validate the research questions set.

For the theoretical framework of this study, we have chosen the concepts of public diplomacy and new public diplomacy (NPD). We have described both terms in the academic field and, at the same time we highlight the importance played by these concepts in the world of present diplomacy.

Finally, yet importantly, this research paper starts from the setting of targets by formulating research questions, which give shape and content to the research process and the project itself. Namely:

1. What is public diplomacy? Is public diplomacy important for modern diplomacy?

2. Public diplomacy between new and old. Can we really define a new form of public diplomacy?

3. Can public diplomacy increase the level of the interstate dialogue between Ukraine, Romania and Republic of Moldova?

Practica an teoreticul relevante of the study

This paper comes to bring more information to the existing one, both in theoretical approach and by the practice. The conceptual boundaries most commonly used throughout the paper bring information that is more theoretical; a complete analysis of Ukraine - Romania - Republic of Moldova's diplomatic relationship will present a fresh perspective on the entire process of the interstate dialogue between mentioned countries. It is important to note that, although there have been research papers carried out on these topics, the present study will bring important data in terms of political and diplomatic communication. The research questions set take into consideration certain variables that may have not been addressed until now. Therefore, this paper brings more information regarding the matter under the lens, a different view on the subject and more current information than the existing ones.

A Case Study: An interstate dialogue between Ukraine, Romania and Republic of Moldova. How public diplomacy can increase the effectiveness of diplomatic communication between mentioned states?

In this part of the research paper, we are going to analyze first the present stage of a diplomatic relationship between mentioned countries: Ukraine and Romania. Precisely, we will analyze the post- Euromaidan Ukraine and the present Romania with Klaus Iohannis as a new president of the Romanian government.

It should be noted that after the election of the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych some changes have been placed in the priorities of Romanian-Ukrainian cooperation. Thus, after adopting the Law of Ukraine «On the Principles of Domestic and Foreign Policy» on July 2010, under which it had been announced that Ukraine has a policy of nonalignment, the issue of Ukraine joining NATO was removed from the agenda and cooperation on Ukraine's implementation of Euro-Atlantic integration was rolled. Signing of Ukrainian - Russian agreement on prolongation of the Russian Black Sea fleet's location in Crimea in April 2010 caused the negative reaction from Romanian side. In particular, President Traian Basescu said in October 2010 that „the fact of Russia's prolongation of agreement on basing its fleet in Sevastopol does not suit Romania». Romanian politicians and experts repeatedly expressed a similar position⁹.

After Euromaidan in Ukraine and the election of the new Romanian President, Klaus Iohannis in November 2014, the political and diplomatic dialogue with Ukraine increased significantly.

In January 2015, President Klaus Iohannis has presented, in his first meeting since taking office with the diplomatic corps, his vision on Romania's foreign policy and the priorities of his tenure in this field. President told ambassadors accredited in Romania that the European path of the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine represents one of the main foreign policy concerns for Romania, adding that Bucharest will continue to `firmly' support the efforts in this respect of these two states and of Georgia. «The events in Ukraine cast a shadow of sad remembrance of the Cold War on 2014. Romania condemns the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and will continue to contribute to the materialization of its European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations. The European path of the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine remains one of the main concerns of foreign policy for Romania. The reason is not just that of the well- known historic connections, but also Romania's proximity to the conflict areas and to these states where the Russian Federation acts illegally», Iohannis said at the annual meeting with the heads of the diplomatic missions accredited in Romania¹⁰.

In what regards the Republic of Moldova, the head of state said that the parliamentary elections of November 30, 2014, reconfirmed the people's support for the pro-European political option. «In spite of the difficult regional situation, the citizens of the Republic of Moldova bravely voiced their conviction that this is the path guaranteeing them prosperity inside a society with sustainable democratic institutions. We are determined to support, as we have done so far, the implementing in the Republic of Moldova of the difficult domestic reforms in view to getting closer to the European Union. A stable government with a pro- European unitary vision is to be preferred to any other compromise solution. We hope that the leaders of Chisinau understand the mission bestowed upon them by the Moldovan citizens and direct their efforts solely to the direction of strengthening democracy, Klaus Iohannis maintained. He explained that a `stable and secure' vicinity is a priority to Romania and appreciated the Eastern Partnership as being a relevant instrument in establishing relations with the partners in the vicinity, mainly in the current regional security context¹¹.

On an official visit to Kiev, on 17 March 2015, President Klaus Iohannis reaffirmed that Romania firmly supports Ukraine's rapprochement with the European Union. President Klaus Iohannis declared he has agreed with his Ukrainian counterpart Petro Poroshenko on making more visible the ethnic minorities of Romanians in Ukraine and Ukrainians in Romania. He pointed out the need of resuming the activities of governmental mechanisms to this effect. These ethnic communities «should become a cement and a bridge in our relations. Therefore, the relevant governmental mechanisms should resume their activity and approach actual issues,» Iohannis said after meeting Poroshenko in Kiev on Tuesday. The Romanian president stressed that all the actions of both countries aim at positive effects as regards the direct contacts between their citizens and at joint economic and cultural projects¹².

Following the meeting with President of Romania Klaus Iohannis, President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko has stated the transition to the new phase of Ukrainian-Romanian relations: «We have agreed to resume the activities of the joint presidential commission and hold its next session in the course of my visit to Bucharest. In the course of substantive negotiations we have identified promising vectors of cooperation in trade-economic, energy, environmental, transport, infrastructure and other areas that will have absolutely concrete practical results» Petro Poroshenko informed. According to the Head of State, the parties have «successfully discussed sensitive issues of bilateral relations, including the issue of Danube - Black Sea Canal, and agreed to continue constructive dialogue on these issues at bilateral level and at the level of international organizations». «Today, we demonstrate that we are able to find common mutually beneficial solutions to the problems that have not been solved for years,» the President noted. Petro Poroshenko has emphasized the importance of the Romanian President's visit to Ukraine. It is the first such visit in the last 7 years. «I believe that character of relations between our countries will be the same as between the Presidents - friendly, reliable and trustworthy» Petro Poroshenko said¹³.

Regarding Republic of Moldova, Ukraine has always been a major player in the region. Not only because of the role of the neighbor state and a common historical pattern, but also because of the dilemma regarding the matter of country's foreign policy: the Russian Federation or the European Union? Fortunately, 2014 was a very productive year for both countries. After tragic events, which took place in Kiev, Ukraine now, has a new government and a clear vision for foreign policy. So does Republic of Moldova.

Following the brief Transnistrian war of independence in 1992, Ukraine has remained a crucial player within subsequent conflict management formats, and, perhaps more importantly, has served as Transnistria's window to the world. Ukraine was integral to both the 1997 Moscow Memorandum (Moldova and Transnistria as conflict parties and Russia, Ukraine, and OSCE as mediators) and the 2006 5 + 2 negotiating format (Moldova and Transnistria as conflict parties, Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE as mediators and the EU and the USA as observers). This process benefited from a close working relationship between the political leaders of Ukraine, Transnistria, and Russia¹⁴.

The Ukrainian government reinforced this mediation role by maintaining a functional relationship with the authorities in Tiraspol. This involved a light border presence that excluded Moldovan personnel, relatively loose travel arrangements (Transnistrian officials regularly flew to Russia from Odessa) and regular cross-border trade, all whilst maintaining support for Moldova's territorial integrity.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko declared during the joint press conference that he agreed with his Romanian counterpart Klaus Iohannis on doing everything within their powers to help reintegrating the secessionist Transnistria region into the Republic of Moldova. «We have discussed the security situation in the Black Sea basin and in the Republic of Moldovan, namely its Transnistria region. We have agreed to do everything we can (...) so that Transnistria is reintegrated into the Moldovan state,» Poroshenko said in a joint press conference with Iohannis¹⁵.

As we can observe from the information below, Transnistrian region has contributed to the continuity of the interstate dialogue between Ukraine and Republic of Moldova. However, this is not the only one way of diplomatic communication between these two states.

Dorina Baltag and Michael Smith in their publication explained the very core of the diplomatic communication infrastructure in Moldova and Ukraine. We can see the illustration of this process in the table below: ¹⁶

Participation based on diplomatic ranking reflects the diplomatic ranking of the attendees and refers to regular EU-MS meetings and the weekly meetings of the Heads of delegations (HoD). The regular meetings are hosted by the EU delegation; when they refer to relations with local civil society it gathers together representatives of the diplomatic missions (except the HoD) as well as the representatives of MS aid agencies. The HoD meetings are more frequent, are arranged in relation to most important developments in these countries and usually require unanimity¹⁷.

Participation based on topic reflects the focus of the diplomatic meetings. The thematic (EU) donor meetings have a specific agenda and are narrow in scope. The consultations with other (EU) donors are meetings distinctive for the EU delegation called before launching its regular local calls for proposals for civil society project funding. National embassies host roundtables, a type of meet and greet event, where civil society actors are invited in order to be acquainted with the diplomatic donor community and vice- versa¹⁸.

Group affiliation participation is based on membership of a particular group. In Moldova and Ukraine these have been identified as regional groups such as the Visegrad Group and the Nordic Plus group (discussed in greater detail in the following section). The Big donors' meeting refers to the larger donor community in these countries (World Bank, United Nations Development Programme, Council of Europe, Soros Foundation, EUDs, MS embassies and others). Such meetings are usually hosted by the World Bank¹⁹.

Finally yet importantly, the EU diplomatic actors also interact within formal and non-formal events such as events organized by relevant stakeholders in each country as well as lunch, dinner or an «occasional coffee». Participation is not mandatory, nor is it exclusive to EU counterparts only. These events provide an opportune framework to exchange recent information or brainstorm on new activities, thus mainly a networking possibility²⁰.

public diplomatic communication

Conclusions

In conclusion, the set of research questions formulated at the beginning of this research paper were proved as valid through the entire text of the project. Using a theoretical framework and methodology, we achieved the goal of this article.

In a present fast changing world, the importance of public diplomacy is crucial. Through this mechanism we can engage in a dialogue not only the officials and institutions, such as Consulates and Embassies, but we can involve in this process also citizens, by making them a part of a cultural and social events. It is clear that today the notion of NPD is going far beyond definition. It is a reality, which we are all living it every single day.

Regarding Ukraine, Romania and Republic of Moldova it is understandable the fact that today we need communication and public diplomacy as never before. Including the fact of a completely «New Era» in Ukraine and Romania, external jeopardise of national security and the dilemma which is continuing to grow around the matters of international security, today we have to stay connected through the bridges of diplomacy and citizens' engagement in an interstate dialogue. However, this is a new chapter in the neighbourhood relations between mentioned before states.

Bibliography

1. Eytan Gilboa, Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March 2008, vol. 616 no.1, p. 57.

2. Ibidem.

3. Jan Melissen, The New Public Diplomacy. Soft Power in International Relations, New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2005, p. 11-12.

4. Ibidem, p.15.

5. Ibidem, p. 19.

6. Ibidem, p. 41.

7. Jan Melissen, Beyond The New Public Diplomacy, Clingendael Paper No.3, Hague 2011, pp. 21-22.

8. Chelcea, S., Metodologia elaborarii unei lucrari stiintifice, Bucuresti: Comunicare.ro, 2003, p.18.

9. Vladlen Makoukh, Artem Filipenko, Ukraine - Romania: Issues and Challenges of Bilateral Relations, available at http://www.umk.ro/images/docu- mente/publicatii/Buletin222/makoukh_filipenko.pdf, accessed on 01.04.2015.

10. President Iohannis meets the diplomatic corps, says Romania's foreign policy will be effective, creative and responsive to the dynamic in the region, Nineoclock, 29^th January 2015, http://www.nine oclock.ro/president-iohannis-meets-the-diplomatic- corps-says-romania%E2%80%99s-foreign-policy- will-be-effective-creative-and-responsive-to-the- dynamic-in-the-region/, accessed on 01.04.2015.

11. Ibidem.

12. Poroshenko - Iohannis meeting in Kiev: Romania reiterates its firm support for Ukraine's rapprochement with the European Union, Nineoclock, 17^th March 2015, http://www.nineoclock.ro/poro- shenko-iohannis-meeting-in-kiev-romania-reiterates- its-firm-support-for-ukraines-rapprochement-with-the- european-union/, accessed on 01.04.2015.

13. Press Center, Ukraine and Romania intensify cooperation - meeting of Presidents, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, 17 March 2015, http://mfa.gov.ua/en/news-feeds/foreign-offices-news/ 34508-ukrajina-ta-rumunija-aktivizujuty-spivpracyu-- zustrich-prezidentiv, accessed on 01.04.2015.

14. Thomas Frear, New Realities: The Ukrainian Approach to Transnistria, European Leadership Network, 24 March 2015, http://www.europeanleader shipnetwork.org/new-realities-the-ukrainian-approach- to-transnistria_2569.html, accessed on 30.03.2015.

15. Nineoclock, op.cit.

16. Dorina Baltag, Michael Smith, EU and member states diplomacy in Moldova and Ukraine: Examining EU diplomatic performance post - Lisbon, European Integration online Papers, 2015, Special Issue 1, Vol. 19, p.10.

17. Ibidem.

18. Ibidem.

19. Ibidem.

20. Ibidem.

Application