 |
Full spectrum diplomacy is a combination of traditional, government-to-government diplomacy with the many components of public diplomacy as well as the integration of these two functions with other instruments of statecraft. The term was coined by John Lenczowski, founder and president of The Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C. in his book Full Spectrum Diplomacy and Grand Strategy: Reforming the Structure and Culture of U.S. Foreign Policy which was released in May, 2011.
Lenczowski's book appears to be the first attempt to define the term. In it, he references the military concept of "full spectrum operations" (or "full spectrum dominance") indicating that it inspired his derivation for diplomatic use. [1] He writes that the diplomatic community does not have a comparable term to full spectrum operations, "but there should be, in order to end the systematic neglect of some dimensions of the larger art of diplomacy." [2]
In a chapter of the Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, Matthew Armstrong provides a historical perspective on the use of full spectrum diplomatic action:
In 1948, George Kennan developed a plan for “organized political warfare” to counter the Soviet Union’s growing power and influence. To be effective, it required the United States to employ all means possible to achieve its national objective, including overt activities such as political alliances, economic measures, and “white” propaganda, to covert operations such as clandestine support of foreign elements, “black” psychological warfare, to encouraging underground resistance movements in hostile states. This was not the “diplomacy in public” we know today, but a full-spectrum “diplomacy with publics” that engaged people at all levels and with all means available. Seven years later, Nelson Rockefeller recognized the struggle as “shifting more than ever from the arena of power to the arena of ideas and international persuasion.” A then-young Henry Kissinger, stressing the importance of the people, noted the “predominant aspect of the new diplomacy is its psychological dimension.” [3]
Full spectrum diplomacy is an integrated strategy that encompasses all instruments of engagement including traditional diplomacy and public diplomacy. Of particular note is advocacy for the use of cultural diplomacy to enhance contact with people at the grassroots level.
To increase the role of public diplomacy, Lenczowski advocates the foundation of a U.S. Public Diplomacy Agency. This would not only take the place of the former United States Information Agency (USIA), but would expand to coordinate all aspects of the public diplomacy instrument. Juliana Pilon advocates a similar organization in her book Why America is Such a Hard Sell in which she promotes an "American Global Outreach and Research Agency." Her idea culminates in a system that links the instruments of public diplomacy throughout the whole of government. [4] Yet another proposal is that of Professor Carnes Lord of the Naval War College writing for the creation of a "Policy Coordinating Committee on Foreign Information, Assistance, and Democracy Promotion" that would serve to integrate the leadership of the many organizations involved in public diplomacy to other agencies of strategic influence. [5]
Lenczowski provides further explanation of the construct here:
Thus, a full realization of the possibilities of public diplomacy must take into account the necessity of its proper integration with other arts of statecraft where, for example, military strategy incorporates public diplomacy into its calculations (e.g., in behavior toward foreign populations, the treatment of prisoners, etc.), or where the need to exert political influence requires the collection of “opportunities intelligence” on targets of potential political influence, or the use of offensive political counterintelligence operations. It is the entire range of these public diplomatic instruments combined with traditional diplomacy, and finally integrated with the other arts of statecraft that comprise what is missing in U.S. foreign policy: full spectrum diplomacy. [6]
In support of the concept of full spectrum diplomacy, Lenczowski writes that "the achievement of foreign policy goals requires a multiplicity of means that can be likened to instruments in an orchestra." [7] Additionally, he states that "the conduct of full spectrum diplomacy thus involves the proper orchestration of both traditional and public diplomacy in such a fashion that the policies governing each function do not jeopardize the effectiveness of the other." [8]
This collected orchestration becomes a part of what Lenczowski calls an “integrated strategy” defined by "a concept that requires the coordination of all the instruments of statecraft, including military policy, intelligence, counterintelligence, economic policy, etc." [9]
A previous use of this musical ensemble analogy for an instrument of statecraft is found in a World War II Soviet anti-Nazi espionage element commonly known as the Red Orchestra.
The purpose of full spectrum diplomacy is to promote what Lenczowski calls an "influence culture." [10] This environment includes a more versatile diplomatic corps to accompany an increased focus on public diplomacy. It is a comprehensive approach that will employ many of the elements of what Harvard professor Joseph Nye calls soft power and what a number of scholars and government officials refer to as smart power. The influence culture and resulting integrated strategy of the "orchestra" allow for a broader international approach. In lieu of too quickly resorting to hard power such as military action, the engagement of full spectrum diplomacy provides for a variety of possible non-military actions that could pre-empt the need for armed conflict.
Scholars have been calling for this approach to American grand strategy for years. Paul Kennedy writes that the U.S. "needs to integrate its political, economic, and military aims in a coherent fashion, for years of peace as well as the possibility of war." [11] In his book Soft Power, Joseph Nye asserts that "America's success will depend upon our developing a deeper understanding of the role of soft power and developing a better balance of hard and soft power in our foreign policy.". [12] The resulting "smart power" provides a distinct tie-in to the idea of full spectrum diplomacy. Finally, Professor Colin S. Gray calls for a "fully functioning 'strategy bridge' that binds together, adaptably, the realms of policy and military behavior.". [13]
Though a relatively new term in the lexicon of statecraft, full spectrum diplomacy is already found in reference to contemporary events. In a February 28, 2011 commentary piece in the U.N. Dispatch, Mark Leon Goldberg references the term in the title: "The Obama Administration’s Full Spectrum Diplomacy on Libya." In defense of the Obama administration's strategy in the North African nation, he writes that: "After the unanimous passage of a strong Security Council resolution on Libya on Saturday, there appears to be a full spectrum diplomatic push led by the Obama administration to make sure that the provisions called for in the resolution are swiftly and effectively imposed." [14]
Other references, which occur prior to Lenczowski's initial use of the term, utilize similar terminology or imply the same conceptual framework.
In March 2009 congressional testimony, George Moose, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, urged the development of a larger and more versatile diplomatic corps:
...the first and most urgent step required to restore balance in the conduct of our foreign policy is the rebuilding of the capacities of our civilian foreign affairs agencies. We can no longer pretend that State and USAID can responsibly assume the burgeoning list of diplomatic tasks central to protecting and advancing America's global interests without substantial increases in staff. This is true across the full spectrum of diplomatic activity, but it is especially true with respect to our response to situations of conflict and the threats they to our national security interests. [15]
In a July 2006 article promoting 'full spectrum analysis' at the strategic level, Adrian Wolfberg, then director of the Knowledge Laboratory at the Defense Intelligence Agency, wrote that "the warfighter now operates along many lines at once and across a full spectrum of possible actions, either diplomatic, intelligence-driven, military, or economic in nature. [16]
The Clinton Doctrine is not an official government statement but an interpretation made by experts of the main priorities in the foreign policy of the Bill Clinton administration in the United States, 1993-2001.
In politics, hard power is the use of military and economic means to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. This form of political power is often aggressive (coercion), and is most immediately effective when imposed by one political body upon another of less military and/or economic power. Hard power contrasts with soft power, which comes from diplomacy, culture and history.
In politics, soft power is the ability to co-opt rather than coerce. It involves shaping the preferences of others through appeal and attraction. Soft power is non-coercive, using culture, political values, and foreign policies to enact change. In 2012, Joseph Nye of Harvard University explained that with soft power, "the best propaganda is not propaganda", further explaining that during the Information Age, "credibility is the scarcest resource".
In international relations, power is defined in several different ways. Material definitions of state power emphasize economic and military power. Other definitions of power emphasize the ability to structure and constitute the nature of social relations between actors. Power is an attribute of particular actors in their interactions, as well as a social process that constitutes the social identities and capacities of actors.
In international relations, public diplomacy or people's diplomacy, broadly speaking, is any of the various government-sponsored efforts aimed at communicating directly with foreign publics to establish a dialogue designed to inform and influence with the aim of building support for the state's strategic objectives. These also include propaganda. As the international order has changed over the twentieth century, so has the practice of public diplomacy. Its practitioners use a variety of instruments and methods ranging from personal contact and media interviews to the Internet and educational exchanges.
In international relations, a middle power is a sovereign state that is not a great power nor a superpower, but still has large or moderate influence and international recognition.
A United States presidential doctrine comprises the key goals, attitudes, or stances for United States foreign affairs outlined by a president. Most presidential doctrines are related to the Cold War. Though many U.S. presidents had themes related to their handling of foreign policy, the term doctrine generally applies to presidents such as James Monroe, Harry S. Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, all of whom had doctrines which more completely characterized their foreign policy.
Joseph Samuel Nye Jr. is an American political scientist. He and Robert Keohane co-founded the international relations theory of neoliberalism, which they developed in their 1977 book Power and Interdependence. Together with Keohane, he developed the concepts of asymmetrical and complex interdependence. They also explored transnational relations and world politics in an edited volume in the 1970s. More recently, he pioneered the theory of soft power. His notion of "smart power" became popular with the use of this phrase by members of the Clinton Administration and the Obama Administration.
Cultural diplomacy is a type of public diplomacy and soft power that includes the "exchange of ideas, information, art, language and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples in order to foster mutual understanding". The purpose of cultural diplomacy is for the people of a foreign nation to develop an understanding of the nation's ideals and institutions in an effort to build broad support for economic and political objectives. In essence "cultural diplomacy reveals the soul of a nation", which in turn creates influence. Though often overlooked, public diplomacy has played an important role in achieving national security efforts.
Liberal internationalism is a foreign policy doctrine that supports international institutions, open markets, cooperative security and liberal democracy. At its core, it holds that states should participate in international institutions that uphold rules-based norms, promote liberal democracy and facilitate cooperation on transnational problems.
Digital diplomacy, also referred to as Digiplomacy and eDiplomacy, has been defined as the use of the Internet and new information communication technologies to help achieve diplomatic objectives. However, other definitions have also been proposed. The definition focuses on the interplay between internet and diplomacy, ranging from Internet driven-changes in the environment in which diplomacy is conducted to the emergence of new topics on diplomatic agendas such as cybersecurity, privacy and more, along with the use of internet tools to practice diplomacy.
The Institute of World Politics (IWP) is a private graduate school of national security, intelligence, and international affairs in Washington, D.C., and Reston, Virginia. Founded in 1990, the school offers courses related to intelligence, national security, and diplomatic communities.
Economic diplomacy is a form of diplomacy that uses the full spectrum of economic tools of a state to achieve its national interests. The scope of economic diplomacy can encompass all of the international economic activities of a state, including, but not limited to, policy decisions designed to influence exports, imports, investments, lending, aid, free trade agreements, among others.
In international relations, the term smart power refers to the combination of hard power and soft power strategies. It is defined by the Center for Strategic and International Studies as "an approach that underscores the necessity of a strong military, but also invests heavily in alliances, partnerships, and institutions of all levels to expand one's influence and establish legitimacy of one's action."
The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) is a study by the United States Department of State, conducted beginning in 2009 and intended to be done every four years, that analyzes the short-, medium-, and long-term blueprint for the United States' diplomatic and development efforts abroad. It seeks to plan on a longer-term basis than the usual year-to-year, appropriations-based practice, and to integrate diplomacy and development missions. It similarly seeks to correlate the department’s missions with its capacities and identify shortfalls in resourcing. Finally, it is a precursor to core institutional reforms and corrective changes. The first review was completed by the end of 2010. A second review began during 2014 and was released in April 2015. No further reviews have taken place.
Diplomacy comprises spoken or written communication by representatives of states intended to influence events in the international system.
Cyber-diplomacy is the evolution of public diplomacy to include and use the new platforms of communication in the 21st century. As explained by Jan Melissen in The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, cyber-diplomacy “links the impact of innovations in communication and information technology to diplomacy.” Cyber-diplomacy is also known as or is part of public diplomacy 2.0, EDiplomacy, and virtual diplomacy. Cyber-diplomacy has as its underpinnings that, “it recognizes that new communication technologies offer new opportunities to interact with a wider public by adopting a network approach and making the most of an increasingly multicentric global, interdependent system.”
Smart Power: Between Diplomacy and War, is a 2013 book written by Christian Whiton with a foreword by Paula Dobriansky. Both were diplomats in the George W. Bush administration.
The term public diplomacy was first coined and used by Edmund Gullion in 1965 and the concept developed gradually. More recently, the definition of public diplomacy differs according to different authors. Taehwan Kim in his article "Paradigm Shift in Diplomacy: A Conceptual Model for Korea's "New Public Diplomacy"" defines it as "a diplomatic practice or field of academic research which includes non-conventional actors to promote diplomacy of the people". As the importance of public diplomacy increases, South Korea is putting more efforts to engage in the new trend of diplomacy. Muzaffar S. Abduazimov in his article "Public Diplomacy: Reappraising the South Korean Case through an Evolutionary Approach" presents four evolutionary periods of South Korean public diplomacy: origins, diversification, polycentrism, and institutionalization (2011–present).
Energy diplomacy is a form of diplomacy, and a subfield of international relations. It is closely related to its principal, foreign policy, and to overall national security, specifically energy security. Energy diplomacy began in the first half of the twentieth century and emerged as a term during the second oil crisis as a means of describing OPEC's actions. It has since mainly focused on the securitization of energy supplies, primarily fossil fuels, but also nuclear energy and increasingly sustainable energy, on a country or bloc basis.
| Roles |
| ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Offices | |||||||||||||||||
| Types | |||||||||||||||||
| Topics | |||||||||||||||||
| Documents | |||||||||||||||||
| Other topics | |||||||||||||||||
