Does Implementation Apply Meaning to Public Diplomacy? An Analysis of US Public Diplomacy Toward China

Public diplomacy is primarily defined by scholars as an instrument used by states to communicate with foreign publics, build and manage relationships with them, and influence their perspectives to advance national interests and values and especially achieving foreign policy objectives. According to implementation theory, discretion between the policy goal and practice exists in all policy implementation, so as public diplomacy. Implementation matters to public diplomacy because it suggests an implementing actor’s agency to define and operationalize public diplomacy, which often gives meaning to public diplomacy in the long term. While public diplomacy usually aims to build relationships with foreign publics, its implementation usually produces programs that are different from their original program goals. The gap between public diplomacy’s policy objectives and programs implemented on the ground indicated implementation can influence and apply meaning to public diplomacy. Public diplomacy implementation might not only have led to public diplomacy practices that are significantly different from the original goal but may also affect the degree to which those activities can be successful. Theoretically, discretion is exercised through various mechanisms, such as frontline operators’ preference for means over ends, organizational culture and interests, the measurability of the goal, and resources. Therefore, public diplomacy, as a means to implement foreign policy, is likely to be redefined by these factors through the exercise of discretion in implementation. This dissertation examined implementation discretion in the practice of public diplomacy through cases of the US Department of State and the Department of Defense. The findings of this dissertation suggested that implementation can largely explain and apply meaning to public diplomacy. Through practice, public diplomacy became something else which strayed from its original goal. This result implied that public diplomacy is in the eye of the beholder and its meanings can vary in large degree across different actors.