KOREANENGLISH
- 연구원소식 - Jeju Forum Alumni Newsletter
Jeju Forum Alumni Newsletter
Titles [Jeju Forum Alumni Newsletter] (No.9 | December 2018) Vision and Strategy of Public Diplomacy for Peace and Prosperity in Northeast Asia
Writer JPI  (admin)
2018-12-06 오후 1:48:11

 

Soft power has become increasingly influential in the international community. In particular, as a middle power, Korea needs to utilize soft power strategically and effectively to win understanding and support from the international community for its diplomatic policies and situation on the Korean peninsula. Against this backdrop, this session analyzes cases of public diplomacy of other major nations to examine the implications of the direction and strategy for Korea’s public diplomacy. This session particularly discusses ways to contribute to peace in the Korean peninsula, in Northeast Asia and in the international community through public diplomacy. In short, this session identifies the role of public diplomacy of Korea to promote peace in consideration of various factors such as the political situation on the Korean peninsula, structural environment in Northeast Asia, Korea’s contributive role in the international community and the fourth industrial revolution and digitalization. 

 

The following are excerpts from the final report of the Jeju Forum 2018.

 

 

 

 

Moderator
PARK Enna Ambassador for Public Diplomacy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

 

Presenter

Jay WANG Director, USC Center on Public Diplomacy

Rui MATSUKAWA Senator, Liberal Democratic Party

Nancy SNOW Pax Mundi Professor of Public Diplomacy, Kyoto University of Foreign Studies

 

 
 

 

Discussant

CHOI Jungwha President, Corea Image Communication Institute


Kadir AYHAN Professor, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies

Robert KELLY Professor, Pusan National University

 

● PARK Enna As you know, we are living in the era of public diplomacy. Most countries are very kin about their national image. They would like to favorable international opinion on their national policy. Northeast Asia is no exception. Korea, Japan and China are all active in conducting public diplomacy. Japan is known as a country with beautiful culture and tradition. Most people love Japanese food, tea culture etc. Japan is the leading country in our region, and China is a relatively latecomer in terms of public diplomacy. The Confucius Institute is very active in promoting Chinese national image. While, Korea is also a latecomer in the field for public diplomacy. We are trying very active to win the hearts and minds of foreign publics. I am the ambassador of public diplomacy. This position was created just 2 years ago. So we are somewhat late in conducting public diplomacy but we are serious about it.
With respect to Northeast Asia region’s public diplomacy, we are facing two challenges. The first challenge is the trend of rising nationalism. Northeast Asian countries are witnessing nationalistic trend. With the narrower term of nationalism prevailing, public diplomacy becomes national branding focusing on differences rather than common vision for the regional community. Public diplomacy with such trend might not be able to play a positive role in win-ning solidarity, peace, and harmony in this region. The second challenge is the current situation of the Korean Peninsula. There has been a positive development in recent months we had the South-North Summit, followed by the DPRK and US Summit in Singapore. We are at the critical juncture of creating peace, overcoming 70 years of hostility and conflicts, by solving the North Korean missile problem through diplomatic way. The issue is critical not only for Korea but also for the international community. Public diplomacy can favorable condition to mobilize international support and keep peace initiative in the Peninsula. Everyone believes that Korea should live peacefully, living in a peaceful world free of nuclear threats. We wonder what role public diplomacy can play to contribute to achieving this ultimate goal – peace on the Peninsula.

 

● Rui MATSUKAWA Japan has been conducting a steady cultural diplomacy. The origin of Japan’s public diplomacy started after the war to give the image of peaceful nation and to nurture friendly relations with neighbor countries.
Kim Jung Un successfully changed the image of North Korea as a cruel dictatorship, who murdered his own brother. It turned the image of North Korea as a country wishing for economic development. Now we are in the process of denuclearization. This should not be forgotten, although friendly atmosphere is very important. If North Korea becomes peaceful, what happens next? People can move directly through the land. Nobody should fear. These are the reasons why peace is important in the Peninsula. I believe that peace does not just arise from friendly atmosphere. Denuclearization should be the foundation. For Japan, as a sovereign nation, we have to solve this issue. Japanese people do welcome peaceful relation between South and North Korea but we also want our peace. Japanese diplomacy needs to recognize the importance of this relation to the world as well, so that we can work together. Denuclearization is the common goal for both Japan and Korea.
Japanese culture such as tea ceremony, floral arrangements, kabuki, and sumo were introduced to let foreign citizens understand Japanese culture. Japan has for a long time been practicing cultural diplomacy, to let foreign citizens perceive of Japan as a peaceful country, technologically advance and with deep traditions.
Shift in emphasis: Rising importance of foreign public
The diplomacy targets not just from diplomats to diplomats but to everyone. With social media, this has no meaning. There also are non-state actors in public diplomacy. It is important for the Japanese government to reach foreign citizens directly making them to understand Japan’s foreign policy.
Japanese government’s strategy: Promotion of popular culture
Soft power is critical in public diplomacy and for diplomacy itself. The purpose of public diplomacy is first to disseminate government’s policy and, second to a positive image amongst foreign citizens. What the Japanese government is doing is to utilize Japanese popular culture. Japanese manga and animation are very popular abroad and I believe this has a fresh image of Japanese culture. In this light, public diplomacy by nature is a continuous collaboration of what you have. Korea has many assets such as popular culture – K pop and Korean dramas. Japan has a lot to learn from Korea. For Japan, we are making Manga awards and cosplay awards. We appreciate those foreign Manga creators, those who do not only copy but create. We are also doing ordinary traditional country to country memorial. This year is the 20th anniversary of Kim Dae Jung and Keizo Obuchi partnership. Realizing the 21st anniversary to nurture friendship and public diplomacy can certainly play a role. Japan recently created ‘Japan House’ to disseminate Japanese culture, food, and information.
Goal in the region: Denuclearization
Kim Jung Un successfully changed the image of North Korea as a cruel dictatorship, who murdered his own brother. It turned the image of North Korea as a country wishing for economic development. Now we are in the process of denuclearization. This should not be forgotten, although friendly atmosphere is very important. If North Korea becomes peaceful, what happens next? People can move directly through the land. Nobody should fear. These are the reasons why peace is important in the Peninsula. I believe that peace does not just arise from friendly atmosphere. Denuclearization should be the foundation. For Japan, as a sovereign nation, we have to solve this issue. Japanese people do welcome peaceful relation between South and North Korea but we also want our peace. Japanese diplomacy needs to recognize the importance of this relation to the world as well, so that we can work together. Denuclearization is the common goal for both Japan and Korea.​

 

● Jay WANG What I will share now are my observations on some of the trends in this field of public diplomacy, implications for this region as well as challenges the region is facing.

Public diplomacy is what nations undertake to reach the international community’s public opinion in the world. An official from the US Secretary of Defense once said that America has got two fundamental power tools – intimation and inspiration. Soft power stems from inspirations. Joseph Nye said, in today’s global information age, victory depends on whose story wins not whose army wins. Public diplomacy matters in both global security and local security, through the building and maintaining of friendly relationships.
Changing public diplomacy
Given the recent changes in geopolitics and advances in technology, we are now seeing public diplomacy being disrupted by some of these social forces. To begin with democratic shifts are reshaping current patterns. Globally and regionally, Asian populations especially from developing countries are witnessing urbanization. Ethnic mapping is also changing with migration. This means our audience is changing, and therefore that our public diplomacy strategy should change. Changes will continue to occur. The platforms and tools we use for public diplomacy should evolve accordingly.
There also is a great deal of geopolitical uncertainty: how are we going to see the new order? Concerns are being raised in domestic discourses in how countries should engage internationally. Then there is the emergence of non-state actors such as individuals and companies. For example, there is the State of California. It is the 5th largest economy. States and cities in California are actively engaged in issues that were traditionally resolved by federal government – such as climate change, domestic policy issues such as immigration and refugee.
Another geopolitical force is about what is under the sustainable development umbrella. Many of these issues have transnational nature. Public diplomacy needs to deal with issues that have transnational scope. How do we work with these issues that were traditionally dealt on a national level? Climate change is the most significant threat that the world now faces. Countries around the world are not realizing how severe the problem is.
So in a nutshell, the framework for public diplomacy is encountering all types of changes generated by external sources concerning its audience, platforms and actors.
Responses
There is a need to make public diplomacy more strategic rather than giving out tactical solutions. A deeper understanding in human behavior in a digital environment is also needed. Questions include: how do we build trust in such environment? How do we combat counterforces?
As we try to reach our target audience of public diplomacy, it is important to know what the audience information channel is. Is it face-to-face or digital? Information map need to be constructed clearly. This is a very big challenge as we do not know the information map. The following quote used in advertising can in this case apply to public diplomacy as well: “Half of the money is wasted but we do not know where the waste comes from.”
We may need to hint how to operate: We need operation model for public diplomacy. There are very similar foreign ministries and a department in charge of public diplomacy in each country. Do we need to rethink how we should operate public diplomacy? Communication platforms are changing and operating more directly. There are also emerging non-state actors and third parties. Do we need to consider these changes to rethink how we operate public diplomacy? There also is a need to give more importance to key functional areas such as technology.
Thoughts on Northeast Asia
This is the moment that we are trying to figure out the 21st world order. Northeast Asia is shaped by both ancient culture and dynamic contemporary societies. How should East Asia contribute to the development of new world order? My observation comes from an American perspective. But we do not have perspectives from other regions on what public diplomacy ought to be in the future. This is underdeveloped area.

 

● PARK Enna Mr. Wang raised so many questions. We are undergoing speed changing world order in terms of technology and issues. The world we are living in is very different from decades ago. Changes will happen faster now. Northeast Asia could be an experimental area of public diplomacy. We need a deep understanding from the three countries of Korea, Japan, and China. We have to make a new culture to collaborate not only for this region but for the new world order mentioned earlier.

 

● Nancy SNOW The origin of the term public diplomacy comes from an American diplomat Edward Guillion. He was trying to come up with the term that would describe the actions of diplomats at that time that tried to reach foreign publics.

After I finished my PhD, I engaged in public diplomacy inside from government and worked at the USIA. We did not even think in terms of digital at that time. The power of cultural diplomacy. We had a tough narrative regarding relationship. USIA created a film told different narratives.
I have taught public diplomacy in Tsinghua University. China has a certain advantage in that the global communications continue in forms much broader there. There is no problem of using the word propaganda. There is no problem with complexity. They are often used interchangeably in public diplomacy. I really take my hat to Korea, because, with the agreement with Matsukawa here - Japan is playing catch up. Japan has sort of got into this more organized effort in public diplomacy rather late because Japan had certain prior benefits in terms of being a cultural superpower. There is no doubt about it. And a lot of emphasis has been put into cultural diplomacy. The ‘Cool Japan’ and Jpop – Korea has Kpop too. I think here in Korea, you are more advanced in terms of the infrastructure of public diplomacy. What I also see is the larger engagement. For instance, the entire layout of this room with all these cameras. This does not happen when I talk about public diplomacy in Japan! As far as I know, I am the only professor of Public diplomacy in Japan. And my title is ‘world peace professor of public diplomacy.’
Public diplomacy as a process
Just like with a peace process, you have to view public diplomacy as a process. It is a dynamic. It is ongoing. It is never ending. And it is often very exhaustive work because it is very much about person-to-person engagement. So we have the interpersonal level, we have the regional level, and we have the international level.
Different status of public diplomacy in China, Japan, and Korea
I have taught public diplomacy in Tsinghua University. China has a certain advantage in that the global communications continue in forms much broader there. There is no problem of using the word propaganda. There is no problem with complexity. They are often used interchangeably in public diplomacy. I really take my hat to Korea, because, with the agreement with Matsukawa here - Japan is playing catch up. Japan has sort of got into this more organized effort in public diplomacy rather late because Japan had certain prior benefits in terms of being a cultural superpower. There is no doubt about it. And a lot of emphasis has been put into cultural diplomacy. The ‘Cool Japan’ and Jpop – Korea has Kpop too. I think here in Korea, you are more advanced in terms of the infrastructure of public diplomacy. What I also see is the larger engagement. For instance, the entire layout of this room with all these cameras. This does not happen when I talk about public diplomacy in Japan! As far as I know, I am the only professor of Public diplomacy in Japan. And my title is ‘world peace professor of public diplomacy.’ ​

 

Emphasis on Exchange Programs


I left California, I retired early as a professor because I could see what was happening here, in this part of the world. And I think there is an enormous opportunity to come together and have more collaborative, sharing of information. Particularly, what I love the most are exchange programs.

For instance, we are doing work now with KF looking at the government sponsored exchanges here. The Japanese government has very similar exchange programs that bring foreign students to Japan. Just like we have in Korea, just like they have in China. Where we have not looked into is the public diplomacy roles of this students, because what they are doing is serving as cultural mediators. They are returning to their home countries, they are acting as interpreters, and sympathize with the cultures that they experienced.
One thing we noted in our recent survey from the KF is that students with multicultural networks have friendships not only in this case with Korean friends, but they also have foreign friends in Korea, are much more likely to acknowledge happier time in their studying abroad. But they also predict that they will be more successful going forward. I found out the same information 25 years ago in my doctoral dissertation looking at Fulbright scholarship.

I value the multicultural outlook, which is what I have discovered going out all the way to the Middle East and back here in Jeju today. And I think that the value in public diplomacy now is more critical than ever. Sadly, when I worked in USIA, our budget was billion dollars. That may seem like a lot, but compared to other organizations, it was very limited. That was always the challenge in public diplomacy. Maybe less so in China. My Chinese scholar friends are very envious of both Japan and Korea because they see that you get much greater return. You get a very positive return. And Japan has probably invested the least. There is envy there that Japan has got this marvelous image.
To conclude, there are many critical issues. I really want young people in this room to get involved in public diplomacy. Everybody in this room is a public diplomat. That is something we need to remember. It is not just scholarship it is not just practitioner’s world or training. It is very much about developing that outlook of curiosity and mutual understanding that is critical to our world.
To conclude, there are many critical issues. I really want young people in this room to get involved in public diplomacy. Everybody in this room is a public diplomat. That is something we need to remember. It is not just scholarship it is not just practitioner’s world or training. It is very much about developing that outlook of curiosity and mutual understanding that is critical to our world. ​

 

● PARK Enna You emphasized the power of storytelling which is actually a process and dynamic. I was little surprised that Chinese colleagues envy Japan and Korea, we actually envy China because there is no limit in budget for Chinese officials.

 

● CHOI Jungwha The main purpose of public diplomacy is to make a country attractive - to make the country that other people want to go and live. In that sense, I think Japan did a very good job. What gives a good image to a country? I think the very important thing is to care for others and to respect others. For that purpose, Japan is doing very well. As you all know, the image of one country or a person depends both on the contents and the efficient way of communication. I think Japan is continuously improving their contents, and they are also a very good efficient communicator. Sometimes both Japan and Korea are spontaneous and diplomatic, but sometimes we are too direct. for that, I think Japan takes very prudent and elegant way of approach, and way of communicating information. Do you think Korea for its public diplomacy, is reaching the balance between the improvement of contents and efficiency in communication?

 

● Rui MATSUKAWA I think the question touches upon the difference between propaganda and public diplomacy. Public diplomacy is not telling lies. It should reflect reality. For example, my concentration is Osaka. Osaka is now enjoying huge Korean tourists. It is both ways. People to people exchange is very important. Tourists who came to Japan and enjoyed Japan will like Japan and bring good image of Japan back to their home. Tourists become public diplomats. But on the contents side, if those who come to Japan and get disappointed, the outcome would be different. In this sense, the contents are very important. Korea already has contents. Korea is good at promoting itself. Korea is amazing at selling stories and images. For me, Korea is doing great. What really is necessary is to have a little more edge around each content. Something that holds different contents together. There is no common ground that binds these different contents. There is a room for improvement.

 

● CHOI Jungwha You said building trust is very important, I think that that is one of the most fundamental thing in public diplomacy. These days, a lot of focus is on the North Korea and US summit. Do you think through that summit the two countries can successfully build trust for their relation?

 

● Jay WANG We are only making first step in trust building between US and North Korea. It is an important step but it really is just a first step. There are two points. One is why is trust so important in this particular case but also broadly in public diplomacy. Because trust is always a function of risk perception, which means that when we see something we see higher risk, that we need more trust. And because of uncertainty geopolitically, the risk perception has heighted. There is a need for more trust. In this case, for North Korea for the longest time, people do not know about the country. What are the key factors that drive the trust? Doing something with good intention, not to harm. In this case at least they scored one. The media in the publics in USA – at least they came to the talks with good intention. That is the first thing. You need to have some level of transparency. It was a public diplomacy event, and it was visible to everyone. There is another point: Can I rely on you? It depends on not on a single performance but repetition. In this case, we do not know because it is just really a first step. Everything else needs to be measured against the goal of denuclearization.

 

● CHOI Jungwha You said that USIA was now incorporated in State Department in 1999. Korea used to have Government Information Agency in the past. But now it disappeared. So, my question is, when a country reaches a certain condition or level for the public diplomacy, there is no need to have an independent institution. What do you think about it?  

 

● Nancy SNOW You were asking about the need for an official public diplomacy agency. Let us think about the most critical issue before us, which is climate change. There are so many issues related to global commons. And I believe there were always the needs for official story created by governments. And having worked inside the government, I have seen the value of that. You need a more traditional, formal infrastructure. At the same time, though, as I said earlier, public diplomacy, just like climate change, is everybody’s business and concern. So increasingly in public diplomacy, we are seeing the rise of non-state actors. In terms of trust, that may be a greater opportunity to build trust over time. And this is my experience as I travel internationally and talk about public diplomacy, it is often to find differences by nation to nation. But what we have in common is we have a need to get along better with each other. We have need to reduce violence, not only to the planet but from human to human. And so if we can use public diplomacy, and if perhaps if I can persuade you of the value of having public diplomacy outlook and everything we do, then you will be more aware of what you do in your behavior and how it impacts, informs, and engages, with all the people you come in contact with. That is why I highlighted earlier the need for experiencing a multicultural environment, and the need to say the World Cup in Osaka also benefits foreign visitor numbers in Korea and China as well. These are very positive win-win measures. So I do not think the official will ever go away, and I am little bit nostalgic for my days at USIA. At the same time though, I think I am finding that, the Edelman Trust Barometer, is now in its 18th year. And what they found this year is the decline in trust across all measures. But trust opportunity is best outside of institutions. Trust can be built officially inside of an agency, but also widely outside in our unofficial contacts with each other.

 

● Kadir AYHAN Both Wang and Nancy emphasized the importance of telling stories. This is also referred to as competitive aspect of public diplomacy. But there is also another respect of collaborative public diplomacy. And I think the 2002 World Cup is a perfect example of collaborate public diplomacy for both countries of Korea and Japan. Doing public diplomacy is also about managing relationship, improving mutual understanding, and creating confidence and trust between countries. It is mentioned in our recent studies: many students learn about Korea more after coming here, but we also see that they learn about Korea through others. We could see the importance of mutual understanding.
And I remember 10 years ago, I went to Japan, representing Korea. We had this Korea, China, and Japan media workshop. It was hosted by Korean-Japanese and Korean studies, and I was in the Korea team. At the end of the workshop, there was a senior official from Japan Foundation. He told us that regardless of the topic of the workshop, the point that the students from all three countries have gathered here itself is amazing. He said it was unimaginable when he was young. But we still have a secluded country in this region – North Korea. Reconciliation will open up more possibilities in this exchange. In terms of public diplomacy, you need communication and exchanges. In the last 10 years in Korea, these exchanges were shut down. We see Pyeongchang Olympics and increasing emphasis on the people-to-people exchanges. Recently for example, SNU students applied for having an exchange with their counterpart in Pyeongyang. If this happens, it would be the first exchange student program between the two countries. Mutual understanding can only happen when we have exchanges in diverse fields - between scientists, artists, students, religious people, etc. Do you think there is potential for more people to people exchange and whether this would have qualitative aspect of public diplomacy on SK and North Korea and North Korea and USA?

 

● Jay WANG All we can do is trying to help individuals to enlarge and enhance our capacity for empathy. I am using the theory to explain, it is a Western idea. I am not sure whether this theory can be applied to this context. It is a theory that says that individuals, we are moral individuals in a sense that we can sometimes think of someone else’s interests and there are times we may even sacrifice our own interests to help others get their interests. But in terms of groups, as a group, as a social organization, we are immoral. That is why throughout the history, social organizations have always had conflicts. public diplomacy is a collaborative action. In the so-called 21st century world order, because of globalization, we are more independent and there is more cooperation. Can that lead to more collaborative effort transcending individual-nation state and global commons problem? For that I do not know. But history so far tells us that individuals are moral, and the societies are immoral, in a sense that we have less capacity for empathy as a social organization.

 

● Nancy SNOW Of course, I am a great advocate of collaboration and exchanges. In 2012, what brought me back to Japan was Fulbright Sophia. I want to share the concern that I have. Yes, globalization is bringing us together. But it also threatens people. (fear and insecurity). When I was in Israel, I taught at the first Jewish university there. If we do not have exchanges, you cannot guarantee success. But if you do not do exchanges, we will continue to live in these pockets of places and this will prevent us from getting to know each other to begin with. This leads us to miss opportunity. What you will find is that you have so much things in common. Yet, enemy image persists. This happens in East Asia as well. Peace and security and freedom, trust building measure really matter, and exchange programs really help because it builds over time.

 

● Robert KELLY For those living in another regions, North Korea and South Korea can sometimes be confusing. Even Donald Trump got confused about South and North couple of weeks ago. When I say I live in Korea, people always ask me “which one?” Also, North Korea, especially in western media, have been displayed as a cliched villain. All the time in movies and news. This is sort of an issue. There is an image of North Korea as an unbelievably powerful state. When lots of people talk about Korea out there they are talking about North Korea. The popular image of Korea out there is North Korea. For South Korea, South Korea gets to be perceived as a normal country part of OECD, part of globalization. So it actually is not a bad thing for the image, but in terms of profile issue, this could be a problem.

The North Korea-US Summit: so much emphasis on media and creating image and broadcasting. The part of the reason why there was so much emphasis on TV and media is heavily related to the creation of image, and the topic of this session. Treating North Korea as a normal country is part of their effort for the normalizations. Ultimate goal of denucleariza-tion should not be forgotten against this process. Challenge for Moon government is genuine concession for North Korea.

 

● KIM Taehwan I am greatly inspired by the presentations and comments. I would like to make 3 observations. 1 – My concern about the status of public diplomacy. My perspective on public diplomacy is that it is at a critical juncture in this century. What we are witnessing in this century is the rise of nationalism and return of geopolitics. Meaning the confrontation between nation-states. The rise of populist nationalism. All those phenomena – I personally conceptualize these phenomena as exclusionary identity politics. It is about asserting your identity at the expense of others. That is the problem. Identity politics per se does not have a problem but exclusionary identity politics does. If you look at Northeast Asia, we all know that we all have seen for a long time the so-called clash of national identity between the two Koreas, Japan, and China. The painful collective memory of past history has been deeply engraved in the essential elements of national identities of these countries. The past has influenced heavily in this region’s present, even the future.

My real concern in this region is: “what is the role of public diplomacy?” Unfortunately, I see public diplomacy falling in as another toolkit for geopolitical competition. Obviously, the basic function of public diplomacy is solving foreign policy. The problem is public diplomacy and soft power, for that matter, are becoming another toolkit for geopolitical competition and confrontation. So also lately, we see the emergence of ‘sharp power’ as opposed to soft power. Sharp power means the capacity to obtain a desired outcome not through attraction as in the case of soft power but through distraction. The problem is that it is very difficult to distinguish between hard and soft power. And often, many countries are adopting both soft power and sharp power together. They are commingled.

If that is the case, although I am exaggerating the dark side of the public diplomacy, what is to be done? That is my second point. Many panelists here emphasized the importance of storytelling. But ISIS’ ego-centric storytelling was successful in recruiting. But functionally, I really doubt. When we think of national identity, it is composed of two elements – (1) essentialist elements (ethnicity, shared history, culture, food, custom): public diplomacy so far has heavily emphasized on the essentialist elements of public diplomacy. This is about demonstrating ‘what I am’. I call it ‘common band’ of public diplomacy. There are good and bad sides, but the problem is that too severe competition in ego-centric elements here could be problematic. (2) Constitutive element of national identity refer to values, ideas, and roles. As opposed to demonstrating what I am and who I am, (2) is more focused on showing and representing what I stand for in this international society, or what kind of role I can play in the international society. So the diplomats, when we turn ego-centric elements into constitutive elements, public diplomacy could be different. ‘Inclusionary role-identity’.

 

For the months, in Northeast Asia, we have witnessed certain roles being played here representing peace. What if the countries in the region a common role establishing peace regime? Establishing common security program of Asia at large? Inclusionary role. We can radically expand the boundary of self by incorporating Japanese, Chinese, and North Koreans. I think that is a shift of thoughts. When we think of public diplomacy and national identity, public diplomacy does not have to be only about essentialist elements.
My last point is that future direction of public diplomacy in general, not only in Korea, I propose 2 things: (1) public diplomacy has evolved from monologist communication (i.e. Voice of America) towards at the end of the century thanks to the IT innovation, developed to dialogic communication. What if we move towards one step further as Kadir mentioned, towards collaborative mode of public diplomacy? SK does not do it alone, but we do it to-gether collaboratively with neighbor countries. That is collaborative public diplomacy. Another one is the (2) “themed public diplomacy”. Getting out of the black box of common band, we can move towards inclusionary role of identity. For that identity to be sustainable, I think that we better conduct a themed public diplomacy, reflecting neutral value-based theme. It could be climate change, peacebuilding, or peaceful coexistence. I think probably this there is a very positive direction that public diplomacy could be heading for in this era of gloomy exclusionary environment.

 

● Nancy SNOW I would say something about identity. Prof. Kim raised a lot of critical elements here which is how ready are we to have collaborative approaches. We are not going to have anytime soon respective governments of the countries would have a collaborative public diplomacy agency. But that does not stop what we can do outside of the official agency. There is nothing to stop entrepreneurs in the three countries to start something like this. Maybe the onus is more on Korea because what I see with this inter- Korean summits and Korean peace process, I see that Korea takes a very prominent role here, sometimes very quietly but nevertheless very powerful. I hope that might happen here. I do think that we need to open up of dialogue in this region. Talk about some of our grievances and put things out on the table. Because we know depending on where you went to school for years, we may have different narrative sort of competing in terms of history. We may have competitive sense of history from one nation to another. In terms of myologic to dialogic, I always think about President Obama talking in Hiroshima. Monologist skills really matter because immediately his speech was translated and published as a book and it became a best seller. It was about the power of speech. I am glad that Prof. Kim brought about the idea of identity. Identity is very much there. But they are very much like the notion of Iceberg model of culture. Many of the cultural elements are beneath the surface of water and cannot be seen. Therefore, we have to start with trust building measures.

 

● Rui MATSUKAWA I would also like to touch upon the national identity and competition. I think that public diplomacy is essentially not an independent policy. It is a tool for supporting diplomacy to support your own policy. For improving relation through public diplomacy - there should be a will of the government to improve relation first. If public diplomacy works in a way to provide competition in national identity, that is not successful consequence among especially in Northeast Asian countries with difficult history. We cannot change history, it already happened. You should have a national identity of your own, not depending on other country’s history or what others think. Focusing on not on the past, but on the future and present. What kind of future can we, the country, create? This region is much more important in creating national identity from the past. And that is we - the countries in this region - must do in this region. Third point is that I think it is important to have the vision of the region. Not only about security. Security is the most difficult, I have to say. Many changes are happening here. I think now that Northeast Asian countries including Korea, Japan and China and US as well – what would be the regional collaborative system? Vision should come first amid public diplomacy can enhance it. But public diplomacy is not what we need to start with. I think the governments first need to have the will the improve the relationship.

 

● PARK Enna As Senator Matsukawa mentioned government’s will comes first and public diplomacy follows. For most of the cases, that is the pattern. But our perspective is that public diplomacy can influence our decision-making process. We can make input.
Having heard presentations and comments, we have got some answers to those challenges. In my view, the answer to the first question is collaborative public diplomacy as many panelists emphasized. What we have to do in these countries is not just to promote our own national interests, but we have to conduct public diplomacy in order to contribute to the regional and global public goods. As Prof. Kim said, we can develop some program, neutral value-based programs, by all three countries. This is the new paradigm and direction of public diplomacy. There actually is a good development in that direction. With Japan – Kim Dae Jung and Keizo Obuchi statement 20th anniversary. We also have a trilateral cooperation mechanism: Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat. They are quite active. These institutes are very well collaborative organizations. We also have trilateral public diplomacy forums, in this year, there will be the 2nd forum. We hope that all three countries can concrete program to promote people-to-people exchange and communication.
Having heard presentations and comments, we have got some answers to those challenges. In my view, the answer to the first question is collaborative public diplomacy as many panelists emphasized. What we have to do in these countries is not just to promote our own national interests, but we have to conduct public diplomacy in order to contribute to the regional and global public goods. As Prof. Kim said, we can develop some program, neutral value-based programs, by all three countries. This is the new paradigm and direction of public diplomacy. There actually is a good development in that direction. With Japan – Kim Dae Jung and Keizo Obuchi statement 20th anniversary. We also have a trilateral cooperation mechanism: Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat. They are quite active. These institutes are very well collaborative organizations. We also have trilateral public diplomacy forums, in this year, there will be the 2nd forum. We hope that all three countries can concrete program to promote people-to-people exchange and communication.​

 

Public diplomacy in Northeast Asia – I think we can do more. We can facilitate public discussion on the discourse of regional order. Prof. Wang mentioned how to cope with a changing world and how to formulate new world order. Northeast Asia can be a very interesting place to see how we come together putting harmony and collaboration ahead of conflicts. Also, public diplomacy in this region can have more collaborative forms of public diplomacy - people-to-people collaboration especially among young people. We can a sense of Northeast citizenship in addition to each national identity. I believe public diplomacy can a regional identity.
My last point is that public diplomacy is everybody’s business. It is not monopolized by gov-ernment or formal institutions. Young people are actually the real public diplomats. So multicultural outlook is the key for the success of our future. I will conclude our session by saying that despite difference in our profession we all are in genuine sense public diplomats.
My last point is that public diplomacy is everybody’s business. It is not monopolized by gov-ernment or formal institutions. Young people are actually the real public diplomats. So multicultural outlook is the key for the success of our future. I will conclude our session by saying that despite difference in our profession we all are in genuine sense public diplomats. ​

 


Policy Implications

 


• Against the backof the changing environment for public diplomacy, there is a need for collaborative public diplomacy in the Northeast Asian region. What the countries in this region should do for settling peace in the region is not to emphasize on promoting their national interests only, but to conduct public diplomacy to contribute to the regional and global public goods. Arrangement of neutral value-based programs that all countries in the region participate would be a good example to start. Through public diplomacy, countries could collaborate to the sense of Northeast Asian citizenship which could not only be reflective of the new world order but also signify the symbol of peace and harmony, putting collaboration ahead of conflict.


• People-to-people exchange is critical especially in building trust. Trust cannot be built unless exchange is conducted repetitively with a clear intention of collaboration. People-to-people exchange can play a role as a foundation for communication which will help us understand each other.