Issue 2/2016

THE ROLE OF PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN FULL PROCESS
OF GLOBALIZATION
Elena GURGU, Aristide Dumitru COCIUBAN
“Spiru Haret” University, Ion Ghica Street, no. 13, Bucharest, 030045,
Romania, Tel.: +40214551000, Fax: +40213143900,
Email: elenagurgu@yahoo.com, tedy_cociuban@yahoo.com

Abstract
The purpose of this article was to highlight the role of public
diplomacy in linking countries of the world in the process of economic
globalization. Like objectives we intend to emphasize the kinds of powers
that play an important role in public diplomacy and national policies on
public diplomacy. The investigations carried out by us so far show that
contemporary international relations recorded, under the impact of
globalization, a process of resizing, which leads to the removal of the state
monopoly on foreign policy. As a result, a whole range of non-state actors
influence the image of a country abroad and information technologies gives
them multiple communication mechanisms. In this situation, diplomatic
activities must be accompanied by a process of communication, both in its
internal and foreign markets.

Key words: public diplomacy; soft power; hard power; smart

power; globalization; public policy; interstate relations.
JEL Classification: K2

Introduction
In this paper we wanted to emphasize the role public diplomacy has
in relations between states in full process of globalization. The importance
of studying this problem stems from the fact that more and more countries
125
Issue 2/2016

launching information campaigns in recent years aimed at contributing to

the priorities of foreign policy, but also to obtain their support for these
companies. In the context of participatory democracy, public opinion
adherence to government policy is indispensable for the survival of a
government and that is why we, the authors, try to familiarize the general
public with useful terms of public diplomacy and the ways in which public
diplomacy can achieve. External strategies to amend or strengthen
international public perception to a particular country are also part of their
public relations campaigns.
In international relations, the term “public diplomacy” appeared to
describe aspects of international relations, which manifests itself outside the
interaction between state structures. There are actions that we attribute to
public diplomacy and existed from ancient times. Leaders of Rome, for
example, invited the boys of neighbouring countries to do their studies in
Rome. This is an example of public diplomacy. In what follows we will
discover public diplomacy as it is seen by specialists in the field.

About Public Diplomacy in Literature

The term “public diplomacy” was introduced into scientific
circulation in 1965, when Edmund Gullion, a career diplomat and dean of
the School of Law and Diplomacy of Tufts University, created the Centre
for Public Diplomacy Edward R. Murrow. The informational material of the
Centre described this term of public diplomacy as “the influence of public
attitudes in the formation and execution of foreign policies. It encompasses
dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy ...
[including]:
• formation by governments of public opinion in other countries;
• interaction between private interest groups from different
countries;
• informing people about international affairs and their influence on
domestic policy;
• communication between those whose function is communication,
such as diplomats and foreign journalists;
• (and) the process of intercultural communication.” [Dizard, 2001]

126
 Issue 2/2016

The term became shortly dominating US government, providing the

theoretical foundation necessary to external activity of the Agency of
American Intelligence – USIA (US Information Agency – United States
Information Agency) that handled between 1953 and 1999 the dissemination
of information and broadcast media US official, taking over the role that
Voice of America had it since the time of the Second World War. Because
the activities of this agency were defined in public opinion basically as
propaganda, a term that had acquired negative connotations, USIA accepted
the term of “public diplomacy” as descriptor of its official activity. The US
State Department defines public diplomacy as US government-funded
programs designed to inform or influence public opinion abroad [Wolf &
Rosen, 2004].
In the same vein, Hans Tuch defines public diplomacy as a
communication process of the government of a country with foreign
audiences, trying to explain his ideas and ideals of respective nation, its
institutions and its culture as well as national interests and policies [Tuch,
2010]. Hans Tuch also defined public diplomacy as “official government
efforts to train abroad communication environment in which US foreign
policy is conducted in order to reduce the degree to which misconceptions
and errors of perception complicate relations between the U.S. and other
nations.” [Tuch, 2010] Objectives and national interests are disclosed to a
foreign public through a variety of means, including international programs,
cultivating journalists and foreign academics, cultural and educational
exchanges, visits and conferences scheduled, and also publications.
Griffin Malone expands the definition including the need to
understand others as fundamental to the success of public diplomacy: “if we
want to have success in our efforts to create understanding for our society
and for our policies, first of all we must understand the leitmotifs, the
culture, the history and the psychology of peoples with whom we want to
communicate, and certainly their language.”
Former diplomat John Brown describes US public diplomacy as “a
process involving three roles: information dissemination, education and
cultural exchanges”.

127
Issue 2/2016

Philip Taylor uses the term “perception management” to describe

the informational role of public diplomacy in this regard by drawing a
distinction between public affairs, public interest, psychological operations,
media management and public diplomacy.
Researchers in the field of cultural diplomacy, as Kevin Mulcahy
and Harv Feigenbaum emphasize the difference between public and
cultural diplomacy in that public diplomacy is moving towards
disseminating information and promoting policies in the short term, and the
cultural diplomacy is establishing long-term relationships.
Public diplomacy, as perceived traditionally, includes:
• governmental support of the programs in the cultural, educational
and informational domains;
• exchanges of citizens;
• programs oriented towards informing and influencing foreign audiences.

Figure no. 1. Traditional diplomacy vs. public diplomacy

Source: after a figure realized by Kevin Mulcahy and Harv Feigenbaum

From the Report of US Commission on Public Diplomacy “we

conclude that this is an open exchange of ideas and information, is an inherent
characteristic of democratic societies. Its mission is essential to global and
foreign policy, being indispensable to [national] interests, ideals and
leadership in the world” [Commission’s Report on Public Diplomacy, 1991]

128
 Issue 2/2016

US Congressman Henry Hyde believes that “the role set for our
public diplomacy [is] to recruit people of the world in a common cause and
to convince them that the objectives towards which tend themselves –
freedom, security and prosperity – are the same ones United States tend to
promote abroad” [Nye, 2005].
The Strategy Council of Great Britain for Public Diplomacy define
this notion as “activity that seeks to influence positively, including by
creating relationships and partnerships, perceptions of individuals and
organizations abroad about the United Kingdom” [Leonard, Stead and
Smewing, 2002].

Hard Power and Smart Power Type of Public Diplomacy vs.

Propaganda
Political scientist Joseph Nye [Nye, 2004] describes public diplomacy
as a political expression of soft power concept which he introduced in the
early 90. In international politics, power is the ability of an actor to influence
another to perform certain actions which would not otherwise be undertaken.
So, hard power is the ability of an actor to compel another to perform certain
actions and tactics that include military intervention, coercive diplomacy and
economic sanctions. In contrast, soft power refers to the ability to convince
the actor to take those actions. The combination of the two is the power of
smart, an approach that strategically uses the most appropriate tactics of the
two aforementioned dimensions of power.
So, the concept of “public diplomacy” is part of soft power, which,
as defined by Joseph Nye, is the ability to achieve the expected goal based
on voluntary participation by allies, not by constraint. [Nye, 2004] Soft
power lies in culture and political ideals of the country. “When you manage
to make others admire your ideals and want what you want... Seduction is
always more effective than coercion, and many values such as democracy,
human rights and individual opportunities are deeply attractive” [Bator, 2005].

129
Issue 2/2016

Table no. 1. The differences between types of power in public

diplomacy

Source: Nye, Joseph S., “The Benefits of Soft Power”, Compass: A Journal of Leadership,
(Spring 2004-4)

Figure no. 2. Nye’s concept of soft power in public diplomacy

Source: after a figure realized by Jozef Bator, 2005

130
 Issue 2/2016

Soft power of a country is created through the activities of multiple

actors and organizations impacting foreign audience – artists, art galleries
and music television, NGOs, political parties, writers and artists’
associations, journalists and media groups, researchers and teachers,
entrepreneurs and religious leaders etc. [Melissen, 2005].
Introducing the use of this term was necessary because the activities
involved were assigned to a concept that had already managed to manifest
negatively – propaganda. Attempts to define the two terms lie in the
following: public diplomacy is based on known facts, real, while
propaganda is based on a combination of counterfeits with the true facts.
We could identify some preconditions for the emergence of public
diplomacy for governments and the scientific community:
x spread of democratic political regimes is characterized by
continued pressure on political society, transforming the legitimacy of
government policies in a key internal stability;
x growing role of multilateral framework in solving international
problems determines the importance of persuading public opinion from
other countries of the need to mobilize international coalitions;
x the establishment of information technologies era allows rapid
movement of information, which leads to the emergence of a transnational
public opinion;
x globalization offers states the opportunity to compete in order to
attract foreign investment, trade opportunities, skilled workforce in order to
ensure sustainable economic growth.
In this new conjuncture there isn’t a clear delineation of internal
policy subjects from the external once, since, for example, the political crisis
in a country can destabilize the international situation.
In this context, public diplomacy has become an indispensable
component of the foreign policy of states, but also a topic on the agenda of
international organizations. In public discourse, the reference to the struggle
for hearts and minds is encountered before, largely in British and American
newspapers [Cull, 2010]. For example, in the London newspaper called
Times, in January 1856 the term of “public diplomacy” was used to refer to
the need to change the discourse of American President Franklin Pierce
131
Issue 2/2016

towards Britain. During World War I, with reference to public diplomacy

was used the term “open diplomacy”, particularly in the context of the
vision expressed by Woodrow Wilson on the international system.
Unlike official diplomacy, which could be described as the way in
which states communicate with each other at different levels, public
diplomacy focuses on how governments (or international organizations such
as the United Nations), deliberately, through both officials and private
persons or institutions communicate with citizens of other states [Guceac &
Porcescu, 2010]. The latter has a transparent character and involves a large
number of players gathered around a common set of interests, opposed to
official diplomacy, which is promoted by the relevant institutions.
Although, as you know, communication with state’s company, which is
accredited, has always been a prerogative of the diplomats.
A precondition for carrying out an effective public diplomacy is the
attractiveness of ideas and values promoted by a state within its own
society. At present, most of the ideas about a country assimilated by foreign
audiences are related to areas that cannot be under the strict supervision of
state institutions – books, TV programs, films, national connotation
products etc. In this case, the governments can only identify ways for
positive messages, to reach target groups, although experience of
government programs in this regard demonstrates many failures (e.g.
information campaigns aimed at countries in the Middle East).
Originally, the term “public diplomacy” has been used as an
antonym of propaganda. While propaganda is usually perceived as
something evil, “public diplomacy” is based on the principle of
“truthfulness”, formulated by the former director of the US Agency for
News, Edward Murrow, as follows: “The truth is most good propaganda
and lies – the greatest evil. To be credible, we must be honest.”

What Isn’t Public Diplomacy

For a better understanding of the concept of public diplomacy, it is
important to define what public diplomacy is not, by highlighting the
differences from the two concepts with which it is often confused, namely
propaganda and public relations.
132
 Issue 2/2016

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines propaganda as

disseminating news, information or rumours with the aim to help or harm
an institution, cause, or person. Another definition on the same dictionary is
that propaganda represents ideas, facts or allegations issued deliberately to
help the transmitter cause or to prejudice a case apart. Differences between
propaganda and public diplomacy lie primarily from the intrinsic need of
public diplomacy credibility and so the need to disseminate (as the
originally role) information with highly truth indeed and with the function
of listening and understanding attributed to public diplomacy later, function
that is missing from propaganda.
Many researchers distinguish between public diplomacy and
propaganda, based on the premise that propaganda by definition means
deception and manipulation. “Lawyers” of public diplomacy argue that the
most successful is to create a bond of trust between governments and
nations through honest and open communication, based on the foreign
policy objectives. It is irrefutable that the dialogue is also an important
component of public diplomacy. This dialogue should not be perceived in
one way, it is also essential to understand how the message is interpreted by
various companies [Manheim, 2004]. It is important to emphasize that the
difference between propaganda, public diplomacy and psychological
operations is diluted with advancing a crisis (i.e., in terms of military action
between the three “instruments” there is almost no difference). Thus,
depending on the situation, either public diplomacy can be perceived as a
means of propaganda or propaganda can become a means of public
diplomacy.
Public relations of the foreign ministries, although using the same
means and techniques such as public diplomacy, represent a communication
with the citizens of the country transmitters in order to help in the
understanding and interpretation of the outside world from a national
perspective and to increase exposure of the international role of the
respective country and its diplomatic service. The key difference here refers
to the target audience of the exercise of communication, the public
diplomacy being oriented in concept and definition by conviction and by
hearing of external public. However, due to increased exposure of the
133
Issue 2/2016

media, the emergence of 24 hours cycles news, the Internet and other forms
of revolution in communication lately, target audience of the two exercises
have begun to lose its degree of ranks, domestic audiences becoming
exposed to and influenced by official communications with external
audiences, and vice versa.
Former US ambassador to Syria and Algeria, senior adviser to the
State Department of Public Diplomacy, Christopher Ross, has identified
seven ‘pillars’ or principles of public diplomacy [Ross, 2003].
1. Ensure understanding of foreign policy audience in the form that
it is in reality, and not as others say or think [, 2006];
2. The need for policy explaining, demonstrating and justifying the
rationality of its fundamental values;
3. Submission of consistent calls, truthful and convincing the
international community;
4. Ability to adapt calls to the target audience, whose constituents
are constantly studied;
5. Carrying out activities not only on narrow target segments, but
also through mass media print and broadcast aimed at the broad masses;
6. Cooperation with various partners to include new representatives
of the target audience;
7. Communication and active international exchange programs.

National Policies in the Domain of Public Diplomacy

There are opinions that the modern history of American public
diplomacy began during the First World War, when the US government
created the Committee on Public Information (known as Creep Committee)
to ensure public support for US entering the war and to inform abroad about
US efforts undertaken in support of democracy.
In 1948, American Congress passed the American Act of the
informational and educational exchange as a legal basis for US foreign
communication [Public Law 80-402 Smith-Mundt., 2004]. Is worth
mentioning that through this document was introduced the prohibition to
disseminate the programs of public diplomacy within the country. It also
stipulated that the prepared material for international broadcast becomes
134
 Issue 2/2016

available for local distribution only during the 12 years after initial creation
or dissemination [Potter, 2005].
After the Cold War, the US has spread the opinion that public
diplomacy is no longer necessary because the USSR, the main threat and the
object of this activity, has disappeared. In 2000, the administration of
President George W. Bush not only has allocated new resources for public
diplomacy, but significantly expanded the staff involved in this process.
After the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, officials in Washington
have recast the foundations of American public diplomacy.
In the early 2000s, research has shown that Britain was associated by
public opinion in many countries with some old outdated features: a country
in decline, traditionalist, racist, imperial hue. In 2002, the British
government created the Public Diplomacy Strategy Management Board in
order to coordinate government activity in communication with the public
abroad. Council approved a strategy in this area based on two concepts:
dynamic and principled tradition and professionals [Leonard, Small & Rose,
2005].
The EU accession process has led candidate countries to rethink their
external image, while efforts are needed to convince their societies of the
need to adopt European standards and fairness of the course taken. In the
2000-2004 period, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe have applied
mechanisms of public diplomacy in parallel with negotiating EU accession
treaties.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland conceived in this respect
public diplomacy as all efforts of the state directed in order to influence
public opinion abroad. The main actor of this is the government of a country
and the container is the society of another country. Thus, public diplomacy
is designed to complement formal diplomacy. In 2000, Poland launched its
first public diplomacy campaign in order to influence the opinion of leaders
and policy makers from the EU member states. [Ociepka & Rzniejska,
2010] The campaign was anticipated by analyzing the public perception
about Poland and poles in countries with the greatest influence on the future
accession negotiation process, but also on Poland’s position in the post-
accession. Polish Framework Program, launched as a result, has defined two
135
Issue 2/2016

target groups: companies from the countries of “old” Europe – to support

Poland’s EU accession, and that a referendum vote for enlargement; the
second group are opinion leaders and officials in those states which
depended directly of accession. Thus, since in France dominates the
stereotype of Polish underdeveloped agriculture, French officials and
journalists in this country are presented in the visits namely achievements in
this area. The same strategy was applied with other delegates, too:
representatives of Austria and Germany were demonstrating achievements
in the labour market and migration; those from Sweden were demonstrating
efforts to curb pollution, etc. [Zorzoliu & Gurgu, 2015].
Of course, the results of activities related to public diplomacy will
never be known or anticipated to the end, because they depend on subjective
factors or some unforeseen international events. It is widely believed that
small and medium-sized states require a well-founded public diplomacy,
since their perception abroad is characterized by a lack of information or the
existence of preconceived stereotypes. Usually, these countries enter into
international information flow only to the outbreak of crises or catastrophes.
If in the case of large states, such as the US or China, public diplomacy is
aimed at changing its image in the societies of other countries, for the
smallest ones – to capture the attention of international public opinion.

Conclusion
In conclusion, today’s public diplomacy is one of the most important
concepts of political communication [Pigman, 2010].
We note that the literature about public diplomacy was written
either by experts in diplomatic history [Jonsson & Hall, 2005] or by
practitioners of diplomacy. Both of them are attracted to the particular
individual experience or sequence of events, instead of a generalization
effort. The works of diplomacy practitioners have rather a prescriptive
character, being dedicated to identifying best practices and analysis of some
contexts that a future practitioner will be able to recognize in his work.
Sometimes just to this kind of work was placed the label “diplomatic
theory”, although the authors emphasize, almost always, the discontinuity
and change, on the way the world has changed between the time they started
136
 Issue 2/2016

their careers and the moment when they’ve done to it [Jonsson & Hall,
2003]. But this rich literature is the very foundation on which to build a
theory of diplomacy, through its connection with international relations
theories. Of course, just as important is the crystallization of a theory about
different eras of diplomacy history that allows us to extract similarities and
differences.
An explanation, but not an excuse, of disconnection between
diplomacy and international relations theories we find in the way it is
conceptualized in international system, based on autonomous constituent
entities (states).
International Relations Theory looks ahead “bottom-up” on the
global political space, in which the society emerges from a natural posture
and then it is theorized the way in which these companies interact between
them [Thomson, 2005].
The state is the hierarchical political space, characterized by
functional differentiation and specialization. On the other hand, the anarchic
political space is populated with states and is characterized by the need for
self-help, while the state has two tools: military force and diplomacy.
Therefore, the nature of diplomacy is a tool that can be used in a quasi-
vacuum space, governed by laws as “balance of power” or “self-help”.
Building blocks of a theory about diplomacy will consist of
processes that allow diplomacy to fulfil the role. The study on impact of the
Knowledge Society upon diplomacy will return to the study of the impact
on these processes. Despite the role that the Ministries of Foreign Affairs
continue to play in developing recommendations and implementation of
foreign policies, their authority was diminished considerably in relation to
other ministries.
Academic field of international communication addresses the issue
of information flows that are crossing the national border of the states and
examines how the international system tries to regulate the development of
communications infrastructure, and information flows. Traditionally, means
of communication were used by leaders to achieve political and military
objectives. But in the twentieth century, the international communication
actors from the private sector have begun to play an increasingly important
137
Issue 2/2016

role, which led to the destruction of governments’ monopoly on

communication systems. Subsequently, technological development has
created the conditions for the emergence of a new social force in
international communication: transnational civil society.
It is the result of the fact that, Western states and international
institutions that are strongly connected, such as: the European Union, World
Bank, WTO and OECD, have reached a consensus on the scenario that will
have in the future an Informational Society. The evolution is catalyzed by
developing national and global information infrastructure, designed as a
broadband transmission network through which large amounts of services
and applications are offered in digital format, allowing alternative services
worldwide. In this scenario, large monopolistic state-owned companies will
be unable to collect the huge resources needed and will not be flexible
enough to manage the benefits of changing technologies.
Most states have seen in communications market liberalization and
in an effective competition on national level a precondition for the
development of information infrastructures, while only France, Japan and
South Korea have considered states’ involvement in the development of
optical network. As for applications and services, there was a perfect
consensus: governments can serve only as a facilitator. [OECD, 1997]
The consequence has been the emergence of new types of
institutional actors. The ability to connect individuals and organizations at
long distances, but who share interests, values, goals or common positions,
led to bringing them into entities, have begun to play a significant role in
international relations. Of course, many of them have had a short existence,
but in some cases, practical effects remained (e.g. campaign to ban anti-
personnel mines).
The tool that states have at their disposal to influence the behaviour
of states non-state actors is public diplomacy. Of course, public diplomacy
can be seen as an evolution of propaganda or psychological warfare during
the World Wars, the Cold War and the War on Terror, a view shared
especially in Anglo-Saxon space. But there is another genealogy of public
diplomacy, in which it is part of the new diplomacy of Knowledge Society.

138
 Issue 2/2016

We can say that public diplomacy began its existence during the
First World War, when the US government created the Committee on Public
Information, designed to develop support to the country entered the war by
public opinion in the United States, but also to inform and influence foreign
audiences about the US military effort to achieve democratic goals. The
emergence of public diplomacy coincided with the explosive growth of
modern mass media (cinema, radio, television, etc.) and reached a climax
with World War II and the Cold War. These phenomena have led to the one
of the most important research topics in communication studies.
Public diplomacy includes government programs in the fields of
culture, science, education and information of citizens and the production of
programs used to promote a country’s national interest by informing and
influencing foreign audiences. But public diplomacy requires more than
that, regarding what we previously called the “soft” power. Unlike classical
diplomacy, defined as the instrument by which heads of state or the
government communicated at the highest levels, public diplomacy focuses
on ways in which a country (or a multilateral organization like the United
Nations), acting consciously or unconsciously, on individuals or institutions
through formal or informal, directs communication with the citizens of
another country. But like classical diplomacy, public diplomacy assumes
that dialogue, rather than a presentation with advertising, it is essential to
achieve foreign policy goals.
Therefore, to be effective, communication should be bi-directional,
involving not only shaping messages that country transmits abroad, and
analysis of how the message is interpreted by different companies and
develop tools for listening and persuasion.

References
1. Bator, Jozef, Public Diplomacy in Small and Medium-Sized Countries: Norway
and Canada (Editura Oxford, 2008).
2. Bogdan, Alexandru T. and Comsa, Dana, Eco-Bio-Diplomacy (Bucharest:
Academy of Scientists in Romania Publishing House, 2011).
3. Bogdan, Alexandru T. et al., “Prospects of Agrifood Green Power Forecasting
for 2050 and 2100 with Sustainable Solutions Based on Ecobioeconomics New
139
Issue 2/2016

Paradigm”, UASVM Bulletin of Animal Science and Biotechnologies, (Bucharest:

67 (1-2) / 2010).
4. Bolewski, W., “Diplomacy and International Relations Law in a Globalized
Era”, Springer Berlin Heidelberg (New York: 2003), 25-26.
5. Cull, Nicholas J., “Public Diplomacy: Lessons from the Past”, CPD
Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009).
6. Cull, Nicholas J., Public Diplomacy before Gullion: The Evolution of a Phrase.
US Centre on Public Diplomacy (2014).
7. Dizard Jr, Wilson, Digital Diplomacy: U.S. Foreign Policy in the Information
Age (New York: Praeger, 2001), 5-7.
8. Grant, R., The Democratisation of Diplomacy: Negotiating with the Internet
(Oxford Internet Institute, Research Report: 2004, No. 5).
9. Guceac, I. and Porcescu, S., “Diplomaia public – component indispensabil a
discursului extern în condiiile globalizrii”, Akademos (nr. 1(6), martie, 2010).
10. Gurgu, Elena and Zorzoliu, Raluca, Advocacy in Romanian Public Policy,
Procedia of Economics and Business Administration – PEBA 2015 (Bucure ti:
Editura Fundaiei România de Mâine, 2015).
11. Leonard, Mark et al., British Public Diplomacy in the Age of Schisms (The
Foreign Policy Centre, 2005).
12. Leonard, Mark, et al., Public Diplomacy (Foreign Policy Centre, June 17,
2002), 53.
13. Melissen, Jan, Wielding Soft Power: The New Public Diplomacy (The Hague:
Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael”, 2005).
14. Nye, Joseph S., “The Benefits of Soft Power”, A Journal of Leadership (Spring
2004-4).
15. Nye, Joseph S., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (Public
Affairs; New Edition – April 26, 2005), 72.
16. Ociepka, Beata and Rzniejska, Marta, Public Diplomacy and EU Enlargement:
The Case of Poland (Poland: Penguin, 2010).
17. Pigman, Geoffrey Allen, Contemporary Diplomacy (Cambridge: Polity Press,
2010).
18. Plischke, Elmer cited in Langholtz, Harbey J. and Stout, Chris E., The
Psychology of Diplomacy (Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2004).
19. Potter, Evan H., “Canada and the New Public Diplomacy”, Diplomacy
Discussion Paper (Canada: 2005).
20. Report of USA Commission on Public Diplomacy from 1991, www.
publicdiplomacy.org/15.01.10.
140
 Issue 2/2016

21. Ross, Christopher, “Pillars of Public Diplomacy: Grappling with International

Public Opinion”, Harvard International Review (Vol. 25, 2003),
http://www.harvardir.org/articles/1117/1/.
22. Tuch, Hans, Communicating with the world (New York: Public Affairs
Publishing House, nr. 1(16), March 2010), 7.
23. Wolf, Charles Jr. and Rosen, Brian, Public Diplomacy. How to Improve It and
Think About (Santa Monica, CA, Rand Corporation, 2004).
24.
  , « 
  »,  «
 
 » (, 2006).

141
Issue 2/2016

142