Public Diplomacy by the idea was implemented approximately 100 years ago as a purely civilian part of diplomacy, which aimed to inform foreign populations and citizens about the goals of countries foreign policy by the use of information and cultural programs. In the meaning of the Clausewitz philosophy, that the war “is the continuation of politics by other means”, the military was always linked to the diplomacy but never part of it. On the other hand Military Diplomacy for a long period was just the business for military attaches and their mission was to be “…the Nation`s eye and ears abroad in the days before satellite photography and sophisticated electronic collection techniques.”
Along with the changes in the international theatre, regarding constellation of alliances, goals of foreign policies and threat assumptions, the content of Public Diplomacy has changed and its targeted programs expanded.
At the same time the understanding and definition of security changed its content since the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Nowadays the term of a comprehensive approach marks the definition of security. Security is now an interconnection between civilian and military means and approaches, whilst the use military force remains a last resort. Therefore programs and means from the areas of Military and Public Diplomacy received an increased attention and a more prominent status.
For this reason this essay will try to show the close relation of modern defense strategies, policies and diplomacies. The guiding research question for this essay therefore shall be: Is there in modern Foreign Affairs and Defense Policy a relation between Military Diplomacy and Public Diplomacy, and if so what characterizes this relation? Along that line this essay will try to study the nexus between Public Diplomacy and Military Diplomacy with the assumption that International Relations and Defense Policy’s are aiming on overlapping areas, especially when it comes to diplomacy.
The hypothesis therefore can be encapsulates: without naming it in official policy documents and without a focused strategy, an area developed recently where Public Diplomacy and Military Diplomacy are going along together with a common tool set.
Hereby the special case study of the German Armed Forces are should prove that they are already practicing Public Diplomacy within their military posture since decades.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Concept of Public Diplomacy
3. What is Military Diplomacy
4. Common Strategy and Tools
5. Selective Case Study of German Armed Forces
6. Conclusion
7. Bibliography
Objectives and Core Topics
This essay explores the evolving nexus between Public Diplomacy and Military Diplomacy within modern Foreign Affairs and Defense Policy. It aims to determine whether a functional relationship exists between these two fields, how they overlap, and how modern states, specifically Germany, utilize them as integrated tools within a comprehensive security approach.
- The historical and conceptual development of Public Diplomacy.
- The modern definition and scope of Military Diplomacy.
- The emergence of overlapping strategic tools in statecraft.
- Case analysis of the German Armed Forces' "Ambassador in Blue" and CIMIC initiatives.
- The implications of blurring lines between civil and military diplomatic instruments.
Excerpt from the Book
3. What is Military Diplomacy
Parallel to the definition of Public Diplomacy, the term of Military Diplomacy or often also named Defence Diplomacy was and is still very closely linked to the position and the job of the military attaché. The attaché as the counterpart of the ambassador is a diplomat in uniform with a full diplomatic status whose duty was once to observe and assess the military development in a foreign country as well as to keep a close relation to the foreign military elite. This practice emerged as part of the nineteenth century European diplomacy and continued nearly unchanged until the mid-eighties of the twentieth century. An important shift in the nature and the purpose of international military relations took place together with the fall of the iron curtain. With the change in the perception of security towards the comprehensive approach and enhanced security the role of the military attaché and his duties expanded also. Additionally he is no longer anymore the only military actor performing in the area of Military Diplomacy. The term and modern perception of Military Diplomacy could be defined as follows: “To provide forces to meet the varied activities undertaken by the Ministry of Defence to dispel hostility, build and maintain trust and assist in the development of democratically accountable armed forces, thereby making a significant contribution to conflict prevention and resolution”.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the historical civilian roots of Public Diplomacy and the traditional military focus of Military Diplomacy, establishing the research question regarding their modern nexus.
2. The Concept of Public Diplomacy: This section examines the evolution of Public Diplomacy from a PR-focused civilian instrument to a broader strategy aimed at influencing foreign policies and decision-makers.
3. What is Military Diplomacy: The author defines the transition of Military Diplomacy from a purely attaché-based observation role to a proactive tool for peacetime cooperation, conflict prevention, and defense institution building.
4. Common Strategy and Tools: This chapter argues that both disciplines now share overlapping objectives in trust-building and security, necessitated by the "comprehensive approach" to modern international crises.
5. Selective Case Study of German Armed Forces: The analysis focuses on Germany's "cheque book diplomacy," the "Ambassador in Blue" naval concept, and the utilization of Civilian-Military Cooperation (CIMIC) and Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) in Afghanistan.
6. Conclusion: The summary highlights that despite their different origins, both fields have converged into essential, linked instruments for supporting stability and security in a globalized international environment.
7. Bibliography: Lists the academic sources, policy papers, and official government documents referenced throughout the study.
Keywords
Public Diplomacy, Military Diplomacy, Defense Policy, Foreign Affairs, Comprehensive Approach, Security, Germany, CIMIC, Provincial Reconstruction Teams, International Relations, Conflict Prevention, Civil-Military Cooperation, Peace Enforcement, Defense Attaché, Realpolitik
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper examines the intersection and functional relationship between Public Diplomacy and Military Diplomacy as tools within the framework of modern Foreign Affairs and Defense Policy.
What are the central thematic fields discussed?
The core themes include the definition and evolution of both diplomatic fields, the concept of a "comprehensive approach" to security, and the practical application of these strategies by state actors.
What is the primary research question?
The author asks whether a clear relationship exists between Military Diplomacy and Public Diplomacy in modern state policy, and if so, what characterizes this specific connection.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The paper utilizes a conceptual analysis of diplomatic definitions followed by a case study methodology, focusing specifically on the German Armed Forces' organizational practices.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main part covers the conceptual framework of both diplomacies, their shared strategic tools, and their application in specific German military operations like CIMIC and PRTs.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Public Diplomacy, Military Diplomacy, Comprehensive Approach, Security, and Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC).
How is the "Ambassador in Blue" concept explained?
It refers to German naval activities, primarily ship visits, which serve as a platform for representing German interests, training foreign personnel, and supporting diplomatic relations abroad.
Why are Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) mentioned in the study?
PRTs in Afghanistan are highlighted as a prime example of the overlap between military and civilian tasks, where soldiers work alongside developmental aid experts to achieve security and reconstruction.
What is the main criticism noted regarding the overlap of these diplomacies?
The author notes that critics fear the "blurring" of mandates, arguing that if military and humanitarian roles are too closely integrated, non-governmental organizations might lose their perceived neutrality and legitimacy.
What does the author conclude about the future of these diplomatic fields?
The author concludes that both fields have become deeply linked and are indispensable tools in both peace-time and conflict scenarios to support international stability.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Dipl. pol., MCGI Göran Swistek (Autor:in), 2012, The nexus between Public Diplomacy and Military Diplomacy in Foreign Affairs and Defense Policy, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/230341
