Opening the Windows on Diplomacy: A Comparison of the Domestic Dimension of Public Diplomacy in Canada and Australia

in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Summary

Public diplomacy’s scholarship and practice are evolving and seeking to adapt to the expanding interests, expectations, connectivity and mobility of the publics that have come to define the field in an organic fashion. The characteristic distinction between international and domestic publics as the key to defining the practice of public diplomacy is increasingly challenged by public audiences that are no longer constrained by such traditional delineations. The attention on the involvement of domestic publics in public diplomacy, or its domestic dimension, has to be understood within this context. This article aims to cast further light on public diplomacy’s domestic dimension, with Canada and Australia — two countries that have much in common — as the launch pads for discussion. The article’s first section investigates the approach and development of public diplomacy’s domestic dimension in both countries and draws out the similarities and differences. The second section identifies the opportunities, challenges and tendencies in its practice as well as the conceptual implications. The article finds that while differences in approach remain, Canada and Australia have more in common than not when it comes to involving domestic audiences in international policy, especially in recent years. Their practice of public diplomacy’s domestic dimension appears to be resilient and adaptive in nature, although it has been subject to fluctuations resulting from changes in the political climate, leadership styles and governmental preferences, and resource availability. Additionally, reconceptualizing public diplomacy with a domestic dimension and constructivist underpinnings opens the window on norms that are taken for granted in diplomacy and offers the potential for a more inclusive view and practice — a better fit for its time.

Opening the Windows on Diplomacy: A Comparison of the Domestic Dimension of Public Diplomacy in Canada and Australia

in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy

Sections

References

  • 1)

    See Bruce Gregory‘American Public Diplomacy: Enduring Characteristics, Elusive Transformation’The Hague Journal of Diplomacyvol. 6 no. 3-4 2011 p. 353; and Jan Melissen ‘Public Diplomacy’ in Pauline Kerr and Geoff Wiseman (eds) Diplomacy in a Globalizing World: Theories and Practices (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012) pp. 192-208.

  • 2)

    Ellen Huijgh‘Changing Tunes for Public Diplomacy: Exploring the Domestic Dimension’Exchange: The Journal of Public diplomacyvol. 2 no. 1 2011 pp. 62-74.

  • 4)

    Daryl Copeland‘James Eayrs on Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, and International Relations: A Twenty-first Century Retrospective’International Journalvol. 62 no. 1 2007 p. 52; and Evan H. Potter Branding Canada: Projecting Canada’s Soft Power through Public Diplomacy (Montreal QC and Kingston ON: McGill-Queens’ University Press 2009) p. xiii.

  • 5)

    Alan K. Henrikson‘What Can Public Diplomacy Achieve’Discussion Papers in Diplomacyno. 104 (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ 2006) p. 11.

  • 7)

    Kathy R. Fitzpatrick‘US Public Diplomacy’s Neglected Domestic Mandate’USC CPD Perspectives (Los Angeles CA: The USC Center on Public Diplomacy of the University of Southern California 2010).

  • 8)

    Jozef Bátora‘Public Diplomacy Between Home and Abroad: Norway and Canada’The Hague Journal of Diplomacyvol. 1 no. 1 2006 p. 79.

  • 9)

    John C. BlaxlandStrategic Cousins: Australian and Canadian Expeditionary Forces and the British and American Empires (Montreal, QC: McGill-Queens University Press2006).

  • 10)

    See Government of Canada DFAITA Horizontal Review of the Range of Canadian Public and Cultural Diplomacy Programming: Evaluation Report (Ottawa, ON: DFAIT2005) online at http://www.international.gc.ca/about-a_propos/oig-big/2005/evaluation/horizontal_review-examen_horizontal.aspx?lang=eng&view=d; and the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Australia’s Public Diplomacy: Building Our Image (Canberra ACT: Australian Senate 2007) online at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=fadt_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004-07/public_diplomacy/report/index.htm.

  • 13)

    Ellen Huijgh‘The Public Diplomacy of Federated Entities: Examining the Quebec Model’The Hague Journal of Diplomacyvol. 5 no 1-2 2010 pp. 135-136.

  • 14)

    John Kirton and Blair Dimock‘Domestic Access to Government in the Canadian Foreign Policy Process, 1968-1982’International Journalvol. 39 no. 1 winter 1983-1984 pp. 68-98; James M. McCormick ‘Democratizing Canadian Foreign Policy’ p. 117; and Bruce Thordarson Trudeau and Foreign Policy: A Study in Decision-Making (Toronto ON: Oxford University Press 1972) pp. 37 and 95-96.

  • 17)

    GOC DFAITEvaluation of the Public Diplomacy Program of Foreign Affairs Canada p. 2.

  • 21)

    Lloyd Axworthy and Sarah Taylor‘A Ban for All Seasons’International Journalvol. 53 no. 2 1997 pp. 189-203; Maxwell A. Cameron ‘Global Civil Society and the Ottawa Process: Lessons from the Movement to Ban Anti-Personnel Mines’ Canadian Foreign Policy vol. 7 no. 1 1999 pp. 85-102; and Jody Williams Stephen D. Goose and Mary Wareham (eds) Banning Landmines: Disarmament Citizen Diplomacy and Human Security (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield 2008).

  • 22)

    See Monica Gattinger‘A Dialogue on Foreign Policy: Useful but not Quite Satisfactory’Optimum Onlinevol. 33 no. 2 June 2003; John B. Hay Practising Democratic Foreign Policy: DFAIT’s Consultations with Canadians (Ottawa ON: Canadian Centre for Foreign Policy Development 2003); and Christie A. Hurrell ‘Civility in Online Discussion: The Case of the Foreign Policy Dialogue’ Canadian Journal of Communication vol. 30 no. 4 2006 pp. 633-648.

  • 25)

    DFAIT Programs of Domestic OutreachCall for Applications of the Foreign Dialogue Citizen Diplomacy and Multi-Assemblies Program (Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada2005) document no longer available online; and DFAIT ‘Programs for Domestic Outreach’ Presentation to Policy Committee (Ottawa ON: GOC unpublished document 8 November 2005) p. 4.

  • 27)

    See Kenneth Whyte‘In Conversation: Stephen Harper the PM on How He Sees Canada’s Role in the World and Where He Wants to Take the Country’MacLeans5 July 2011 available online at http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/07/05/how-he-sees-canada%E2%80%99s-role-in-the-world-and-where-he-wants-to-take-the-country-2/.

  • 33)

    See Carl Meyer ‘Budget 2012: DND Cuts Billions Military Heads into “Lower Pace of Operations”’ The Embassy 29 March 2012; GOC Budget Plan 2012 online at http://www.budget.gc.ca/2012/plan/pdf/Plan2012-eng.pdf table A.1.9 and A.1.16 at http://www.budget.gc.ca/2012/plan/anx1-eng.html#a11 and http://www.budget.gc.ca/2012/plan/anx1-eng.html#a18.

  • 34)

    See DNDDefense Administrative Orders and Directive 2008-2005: Public Affairs Planning and Program Delivery (Ottawa, ON: GOC2008) available online at http://www.admfincs-smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/2000/2008-5-eng.asp; and DND Strategic Communication and Public Affairs Plan 2009-2010 (Ottawa ON: GOC September 2009).

  • 38)

    Richard WoolcottThe Hot Seat: Reflections on Diplomacy from Stalin’s Death to the Bali Bombing (Sydney: Harper Collins2003) p. 70. The lack of public involvement was sharply criticized by some academic figures including in the early editions of Australian Outlook the regular academic journal produced by the Australian Institute of International Affairs today known as the Australian Journal of International Affairs. See Gordon Greenword ‘Australia’s Foreign Policy’ Australian Outlook vol. 1 no. 1 1947 p. 56; and George Caiger ‘Australia’s Diplomatic Representation’ Australian Outlook vol. 2 no. 4 1948 p. 230.

  • 41)

    Allan Gyngell and Michael WesleyMaking Australian Foreign Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press2003) p. 180.

  • 43)

    WoolcottThe Hot Seat p. 70; and Mark Beeson and Kanishka Jayasuriya ‘The Politics of Asian Engagement: Ideas Institutions and Academics’ Australian Journal of Politics and History vol. 55 no. 3 2009 p. 366.

  • 45)

    Established in 1950the Colombo Plan for Cooperative Economic and Social Development in Asia and the Pacific launched a cooperative effort to improve the economic and social development opportunities for nations within the region including through the promotion of education and vocational training scholarships.

  • 47)

    Stewart FirthAustralia in International Politics p. 66.

  • 48)

    Evans and GrantAustralia’s Foreign Relations in the World of the 1990s p. 71.

  • 50)

    Greg SheridanLiving with Dragons: Australia Confronts its Asian Destiny (Sydney, NSW: Allen & Unwin1995) p. 10.

  • 51)

    Milner‘The Rhetoric of Asia’ p. 43.

  • 52)

    Milner‘The Rhetoric of Asia’ p. 43.

  • 54)

    Department of Foreign Affairs and TradeSubmission to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs: Defence and Trade Inquiry into the Nature and Conduct of Australia’s Public Diplomacy Program (Canberra, ACT: Australian Government2007) p. 5 available online at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=fadt_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004-07/public_diplomacy/submissions/sublist.htm.

  • 61)

    Peter Costello‘Opinion: Rudd’s Grand Talkfest Proves All Process and No Outcome’The Age1 April 2009; and Daniel Hoare ‘2020 Summit no Talkfest’ ABC News Online 4 February 2008 available online at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-02-04/2020-summit-no-talkfest/1032176.

  • 67)

    Melissa Conley Tyler‘Domestic Public Diplomacy: International Experience’AIIA Discussion PaperAustralian Institute of International Affairs April 2012 available online at http://www.aiia.asn.au/resources/publications (accessed on 26 April 2012).

  • 68)

    Gyngell and WesleyMaking Australian Foreign Policy p. 182.

  • 69)

    Daryl Copeland‘Canadian Public Diplomacy, Then and Now’The Mark3 January 2012.

  • 71)

    Brian Hocking‘The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the National Diplomatic System’ pp. 123-140.

  • 73)

    Andrew Shearer and Alex OliverDiplomatic Disrepair: Rebuilding Australia’s International Policy Infrastructure (Sydney, NSW: Lowy Institute for International Policy2011) p. 17; and Copeland ‘Canadian Public Diplomacy Then and Now’; and Copeland ‘A Future for Public Diplomacy’ The Mark 12 January 2012.

  • 75)

    Rima Berns-McGown and Jack Jedwab (eds)‘Diasporas: What it Now Means to be Canadian’International Journal (special issue) vol. 63 no. 1 winter 2007-2008; David Carment and David Bercuson (eds) The World in Canada: Diaspora Demography and Domestic Politics (Toronto ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press 2008); and Roy Norton ‘Ethnic Groups and Conservative Foreign Policy’ in Nelson Michaud and Kim R. Nossal (eds) Diplomatic Departures: The Conservative Era in Canadian Foreign Policy 1984-1993 (Vancouver BC: University of British Columbia Press 2001) pp. 241-259.

  • 77)

    See Daryl Copeland‘Virtuality, Diplomacy, and the Foreign Ministry: Does Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada need a “V Tower”?’Canadian Foreign Policyvol. 15 2009 pp. 1-15; and Janice Gross Stein (ed.) Diplomacy in the Digital Age (New York: Random House 2011).

  • 78)

    See Fergus HansonDigital DFAT (Sydney, NSW: Lowy Institute for International Policy2011); and Australian Institute for International Policy ‘ICT4IR: International Relations in the Digital Age’ Policy Commentary April 2011.

  • 80)

    Ted Hopf‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’International Securityvol. 23 no. 1 1998 p. 173; and Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’ International Organization vol. 52 no. 4 1998 p. 892.

  • 81)

    See Nicholas G. OnufWorld of Our Making: Rule and Rules in Social Theory and International Relations (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press1989); Alexander Wendt ‘Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics’ International Organization vol. 46 no. 2 1992 pp. 391-425; Alexander Wendt Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1999); John G. Ruggie Constructing the World Polity (London: Routledge 1998); and Jonathan Cristol ‘Constructivism’ in David Armstrong (ed.) Oxford Bibliographies Online: International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press 2011).

  • 82)

    Geoffrey Wiseman‘Bringing Diplomacy Back in: Time for Theory to Catch Up with Practice’, in Stuart Murray, Paul Sharp, Geoffrey Wiseman, David Criekmans and Jan Melissen (eds), ‘The Present and Future of Diplomacy and Diplomatic Studies’International Studies Reviewvol. 13 no. 4 2011 p. 712.

  • 85)

    Sending Pouliot and Neumann‘Future of Diplomacy’ p. 540; and Christian Reus-Smit The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture Social Identity and Institutional Rationality in International Relations (Prince-ton NJ: Princeton University Press 1999).

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 70 70 6
Full Text Views 86 86 1
PDF Downloads 10 10 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0