The Chittagong University Journal of Social Sciences

Vol. 27, 2009, (p. 177-191 )

Diplomacy in the Twenty First Century:

Changing Dimensions and New Realities
Md. Azmal Mahmud ~ h a n '
Saim um pa rves

Abstract
The paper evaluates the changing patterns of diplomacy in the
contemporary world; particularly the ways globalization and
technological innovations have shaped its trans-boundary
character. These changes in the new diplomacy have increased
the importance of public diplomacy and the roles of diplomats
that challenge traditional modes of state-to-state diplomacy.
However, we would like to argue that such changes in
conirnlpora/?. diplomatic practices should be seen as
rransirional, raflzer rltan ra'oltrtiona~~'.
Introduction
The world of international relations has changed significantly since the
end of Second World War. This change of twentieth century is even
more evident in contemporary world which is vastly more challenging,
complex and demanding. The trans-boundary issues and preoccupations
of the new millennium like intemational terrorism, drug and human
trafficking, environmental threats and ever increasing intensity and
velocity of globalization - present new and different types of challenges.
With the new realities and challenges have come corresponding new
expectations for action and new standards of conduct in national and
international affairs. The number of actors in world affairs has alsc
grown enormously, the types of actors have changed very substantially,
the interactions among them have grown ever more dense and intense
and the agenda of intemational public policy is altered quite dramatically
in line with the changing temper of the times. With this complex and
changing nature of the world, this paper finds that the traditional pattern
of diplomacy has also come across significant transition in both of its
nature and scope.

1
Lecturer, Department of International Relations, University of Chittagong
2
Lecturer, Depavtment of International Relations, University of Chittagong
 The Chittagong University Journal of Social Sciences

States are committed to diplomacy by the nature of the world in which

they exist. In times and places where there are several separate states and
their actions affect one another, they cannot function in a \-acuum of
isolation, with each community considering only how to manage its
internal affairs. Each state is obliged, by the very desire to control its
own destiny as far as possible, to take account of the neighbours who
impinge on its interests and those of its citizens, whatever it considers
those interests to be. In more formal terms, members of a group of
independent states are obliged to manage the consequences of the fact
that they enjoy their independence not absolutely and in isolation but in a
setting of interdependence. In this interdependent world. the nature and
substance of diplomacy has undergone a comprehensive change in the
last several decades. Most states, whether developing or developed: share
a number of foreign policy influences. As a result, the need to focus on
the diplomatic practices and the role of diplomats which undergone
major changes in the age of globalization is evident.
By analyzing existing literature on diplomacy, we tried to understand the
trends of the changing nature of diplomacy in twenty first century with ,
particular emphasis on the factors of globalization and technological
developments. Thls paper also addresses the question whether the
traditional method of direct state to state diplomatic communication
became obsolete with the advent of technologies llke television and
internet. It also highlights both importance and limitations of public
diplomacy in the contemporary international system.

Diplomacy and Diplomat: Definitional Aspects

Before analyzing the changing nature of diplomacy and role of diplomats
in twenty first century, it is important to understand the existing
definition of diplomacy. The importance of diplomacy in International
Relations can be understood by the t e r n "the master-institution" (Wight,
1978: 113) or, more prosaically, according to one scholar, 7 h e engne
room" of International Relations (Cohen, 1998).
Diplomacy is also defined as 'the conduct of relations between sovereign
states through the medium of officials based at home or abroad, the latter
being either members of their state's diplomatic service or temporary
diplomats' (Berridge et al., 2001:62). Thus diplomacy includes the
stationing of representatives at international organizations. But the
backbone of diplomacy has, for last five centuries. been the despatch of
Diplomacy in the Twenty First Century: Changing Dimensions and New Realities

diplomatic missions to foreign states, and it is still very much the norm.
Diplomacy is therefore the principal means by which states communicate
with each other, enabling them to have regular and complex relations. It
is the communications system of the international society.
Diplomacy primarily focuses on the issue of national security and
national interest, which in turn is referred to as the Track I diplomacy.
T h s has a long hlstory of being practiced by countries. But the 911'1 ,

incident has changed the practice of diplomacy to a noteworthy extent.

The war on terrorism led by the USA has dramatically changed the
practice of diplomacy of the developed, developing and underdeveloped
states, which are directly or indirectly linked to world politics. At the
same time, Track II diplomacy has gained much importance in recent
times both at the systemic and sub-systemic level. Track II diplomacy
mainly includes public to public interaction and some confidence
building measures.
.. .
~ : ? - 2 r n 2 : is a person professionally engaged in the craft of diplomacy
2 member of a hplomatic sen-ice, whether any aptitude for the craft is
displayed or not. A diplomat may therefore be either a diplomatic agent
or an official at a foreign ministry. The term, diplomat, is also often used
for a person who is demonstrably possessed of those abilities
traditionally associated with diplomacy, such as tact and moderation.
Public diplomacy: A new reality in diplomacy
7
The term 'public diplomacy was not used throughout much of the
twentieth century. The usual terms were information, cultural relations,
educational exchanges, public affairs, international broadcasting and
propaganda. In the 1970s, public diplomacy gained currency in the
United States through Congressional hearings and reports of the US
Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. The term was increasingly
accepted by practitioners in the US Information Agency, who found
7
'public diplomacy a useful umbrella label for government information,
cultural and international broadcasting activities and a way to avoid the
invidious connotations of the word 'propaganda7. In the 1990s, a few
practitioners began to look at changes in diplomacy as part of a broader
inquiry into accelerating globalisation, creation of new information
technologies and the increased power of non-state actors. It was also
labelled as 'The new diplomacy' and scholars found that this type of
diplomacy requires different skills, techques, and attitudes than those
found in traditional diplomacy (Gotlieb: 1991).
179
 The Chittagong University Journal of Social Sciences

Government structures and labels began to change. The British

government appointed a Foreign Office Minister of State for Public
Diplomacy and implemented a Public Diplomacy Strategy Board to
coordinate activities of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Establishment of the much-known British Council and the BBC World
Service was the part of this initiative. The United States created an Under
Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Most
European Union countries, Canada, India, Japan and several other
countries have public diplomacy departments in their foreign ministries.
China has embarked on a soft power strategy that includes public
diplomacy activities long common in Europe and North America
(Kurlantzick: 2007). The United Nations (UN), North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO) and other associations of states also engage in
public diplomacy. Not only the states and international organizations,
sub-state actors, including mayors and governors, also conduct public
diplomacy.
Though public diplomacy is now widely used as a new form of
diplomacy, it does not mean agreement on its purposes and analytical
frames. Use of public diplomacy varies from country to country and
there is 'no one size-lfits-all' model (1Melissen 2006). Counties use
public diplomacy to strengthen economic performance, support long-
term foreign policy goals, enhance \-isibility, project identity, prevent and
manage crises as well as counter adverse stereotypical images. Small and
middle powers are challenged with employing public diplomacy to
achieve their desire to be noticed in the face of limited resources for such
strategies.
Public diplomacy is an instrument used by states, associations of states,
non-governmental organisations, and individuals to:
Understand attitudes, cultures, ideas and media frames of events
and issues
Engage in dialogue between people and institutions
Advise political leaders, policy-makers and practitioners on
public opinion and communication implications of policy
choices
Influence opinions, behaviour and social practices through
communication strategies, actions, narratives with message
authority and
Evaluate the impact of activities over time and adapt to the
changing world ( Cooper: 2008: 243)
Diplomacy in the Twenty First Century: Changing Dimensions and New Realities

These elements describe an instrument that is broadly political and

analytically distinct. It is one among a range of persuasive and coercive
instruments used to serve interests and values. Public diplomacy is a tool
available to political actors when establishing goals and priorities, and it
is a strategic consideration when they analyse tradeoffs among costs,
risks and benefits. It is used to set agendas, explain threats and
opportunities, influence discourse in civil society, advocate policies and
build political consent. Public diplomacy is also critical to the use and
success of other political, economic and military instruments.

In an age of spreading democracy and increasing political importance of

mass media, communicating with the people tends to be ever more
important (Catto: 2001). According to present-day advocates of public
diplomacy, diplomats need to transform themselves "from being
reporters and lobbyists on reactive issues to shapers of public debates
zrc.x:d the u-orld" (Leonard et al., 2002: 06). Public diplomacy, in short,
.---..
-.L-~des the efforts by the government of one state to influence public or
eiite opinion of another state for the purpose of persuading these foreign
publics to regard favourably its policies, ideals and ideas (Potter, 2002:
03). The challenge for today's diplomats, then, is "to move from
supplying information to capturing the imagination" (Leonard et al,
2002: 50).

Public diplomacy operates in three dimensions. The first is

communication on day-to-day issues, aligning diplomacy with the news
cycle. The second dimension is strategic communication, managing
overall perceptions of one's country. The third dimension is long-term
development of lasting relationships with key individuals through
scholarships, exchanges, seminars and the like (Leonard, 2002: 50). In
this new diplomacy, indirect communication, via public opinion, rather
than direct government-to-government communication is more
important. In this process, foreign ministries have discovered the
potential of the Internet as a powerfkl medium for the worldwide
dissemination of information to an audience of highly educated and
influential members of foreign societies (Kurbalija, 1999: 185). Besides
internet, the medium of cultural globalizations; radio, television and
other technology of communication, plays a vital role to shape
diplomacy and to win 'heart and mind' of the people of foreign
countries.
 TheChittagong University Journal of Social Sciences

Globalization and Changing nature of Diplomacy:

I t is obvious that the primary objective of diplomacy is to ensure the
national security and interest by maintaining harmonious relationship
. with other states. Bat in recent times, the scope and function of
diplomacy has broadened and incorporated many trans-boundary issues
which are directly not related to the national security but aims to enhance
it through other means. Issues like climate change, drug and human
trafficlung, intemational terrorism are transcending national character
and a more comprehensive diplomacy is necessary to tackle these global
threats. The diplomatic practices are demonstrated by the functions of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) of any country. T h s particular
office takes the country to the international forum and brings the world
back at home. In short, diplomacy takes the home abroad and brings the
abroad home (Rana, 2007: 2). In this regard, it is worthy to examine the
impact of globalization on the diplomatic practices. As globalization
process does not have the equal impact on all the countries, there are
some differences in the diplomatic practices of each country.
Nonetheless, there are some common impacts of globalization on the
diplomacy irrespective of region, economy, size and other tangible and
intangible factors.
The impact of the globalization on diplomacy is intense and multifarious.
Globalization is intimately connected with international affairs, because
it accentuates the interconnection between countries and leads to
increasing mutual interdependence (Rana, 2007: 1). Diplomacy, as the
generic system of structures and methods through which states deal with
one another, bilaterally, regionally and multilaterally, is under rapid
evolution (Rana, 2007: 3). The globalization process has brought some
qualitative changes in the diplomatic practices. Most of the states are
now following some common diplomatic practices. Some of the common
impacts of the globalization process on diplomacy are discussed below in
details.
The foremost impact of globalization process on diplomacy is that the
process has expanded the internationalization of the diplomatic practices.
As seen in the intemational history, bilateralism has failed in some cases
to' achleve the desired goals. However, multilateralism has proven a
better option for countries with similar economic infrastructure,
geographical location, and to some extent, common history and ideology.
At the same time, some of the non-state actors are involved now in the
 Diplomacy in the Twenty First Century: Changing Dimensions and New Realities

decision making process curtailing the monopoly of the state. Thls

process of internationalization comes as a part of the globalization
process.

The diplomatic process is not Newtonian but Darwinian; it is constantly

evolving rather being static. The focus of the diplomacy has changed to a
noteworthy extent than the earlier times. Apart from national security
and interest, it at present, also focuses on the maximum gain from the
international system through various methods like economic diplomacy,
public diplomacy and para-diplomacy. Subject plurality also refers to the
inclusive nature of diplomacy as the globalization process has brought so
many new ideas to the diplomatic practices. In this age of globalization,
economic diplomacy has primacy for all countries. At the same time, we
can look to the issue of other functional fields like cultural, educational
and the media where diplomacy can play an important role. In the like
manner, some overreaching tasks have become more prominent than
before. One of these tasks is developing the country's external image viz.
projecting scopes and opportunities for cooperation, positive image
building, finding the loopholes and makeover of persisting problems,
dilemmas and shortfalls which are commonly referred as 'brand-
btrilding ' and ' re-branding '. Image improvement hinges on public-
private pannershp, where diplomatic practices focus on leadership in
this regard. Lastly, some of the traditional tasks are outsourced so that
the diplomats can precisely focus on the new issues evolving time to time
around them. The most important aspect of globalization, which has
paved the way to bring extensive change in the nature of diplomacy, is
technological development. Traditional state to state direct diplomacy
has got a new look with the rapid advent of cutting edge technologies
and brought the opinions of mass people into consideration of shaping
the course of new diplomacy.
Technological development: Increasing impact on diplomacy
E;. a system of communication between polities, diplomacy has been
:I<-~snced by the development of available means of communication and
:z---r?ortation. Most importantly, the speed of diplomatic conmunication
has 1-aned greatly over time. In the Ancient time, diplomatic missions
could take years to complete. It is also found in ancient documents that
sometimes diplomatic communications being interrupted for years for
death or detainment of the messengers (Jonsson: 203). In the sixteenth
 The Chittagong University Journal of Social Sciences

century it took four months for a Habsburg diplomat to travel to

Moscow, and in the seventeenth century it took eleven days to send a
courier from Paris to Madrid (Om, 2002: 29). The well-known
expression that 'Napoleon did not travel faster than Caesar' is not merely
a figure of speech, but reflects the reality that even in the eighteenth
century the Ancient Roman roads remained the best communication
routes on land and transport was dependent on the physical capacity of
animals and humans to carry and pull.
It was only in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that technological
revolutions changed the premises of diplomatic communication. In the
nineteenth century the advent of steamships and railways increased the
mobility of diplomats significantly, at the same time as the invention of
the telegraph permitted fast and direct communication between
governments as well as between foreign ministries and embassies. The
development of air travel and information technology (IT) in the
twentieth century added to the ease and speed of movement and
communication (Stems, 1996:113).
In recent decades, availability of internet made it possible to gather news
and information from any comer of the world within seconds. T h s
dramatic development of today's media and IT has elicited concerns
whether the traditional ambassadors became redundant. One of the
obvious effects of the IT revolution is that diplomacy has lost its position
as the main facilitator of contacts and communication across state
boundaries.
In this age of Globalization, Television and other new media have a
significant effect on diplomacy. Importance of appearance and gesture is
increased. Television changed the old conventions of diplomatic protocol
as contemporary diplomacy can be analyzed and understood in terms of a
theatre metaphor (Cohen, 1987: 20). Like the theatre, Diplomats have to
appear before a large audience where their performance depends on not
only what they speak but also their body language and movement.
Television intensifies the visual aspects of this diplomatic theatre. As an
ideal medium for conveying nonverbal messages, television therefore
accentuates the symbolic aspects of diplomatic signalling (Christer et. al,
2005:94). Besides, in this age, it is not easy to make a distinction among
audiences. Whereas classic diplomacy relied on communicate to
exclusive and clearly defined audiences, the message also vary according
to audience, Television and new media tend to engage public opinion and
184
Diplomacy in the Twenty First Century: Changing Dimensions and New Realities

does not allow for differentiated messages. The trouble is that in the
modem world, with close press surveillance and instant communication,
the wind carries the two voices in both directions; adversary and
constituency each hear what spoken to the other (Eban, A., 1983:356).
This has a deep impact on diplomatic negotiations that tend western
powers, especially USA, to engage in more public diplomacy and to
exploit the positive sides of media. For that reason, diplomats
increasingly become engaged in "media diplomacy" (Cohen et al,
1996:24). They are aided by the fact that media susceptibility to "news
management" by the government is perhaps greatest in the realm of
foreign affairs. This is an area where journalists often have to rely on
official "primary definers," where references to alleged national security
threats can be used to keep the media compliant, and where strong
domestic constituencies contesting official sources are relatively rare.
While diplomatic communication has been affected by television in
uncontrollable ways, it is also true that statesmen and diplomats may
exploit the new media for their purposes in communicating with the
world.

The Twenty First Century Diplomats

As the diplomatic practices have gone through major changes due to the
process of globalization, the roles, duties and responsibilities of the
diplomats have also changed. Now the diplomats have to deal with other
issues as well apart from maintaining liaison with the countries where
they are posted. They try to gain the maximum benefits from the
international system through various strategies and tactics. The twenty-
first century diplomats are different than the diplomats of the earlier
times in their roles and responsibilities both inside and outside the
country. The central tasks of the diplomat are less dramatic, and even
less obvious-the advancement of his country's interests in a world of
complex interdependence (Rana, 2004: 5). Moreover, the diplomats of
the globalized world are burdened with new tasks evolving everyday. If
we look into the new and changed activities of the twenty first century
diplomats we will find some key functions.
T2e twenty first century diplomats are not merely the representatives of
their country but also have to function as the partnership building actor in
the host states. The diplomats now need communication channels to
several levels in the foreign ministry. At the same time, the diplomats'
political level contacts commence with the foreign minister and other
-25 185
 The Chittagong University Journal of Social Sciences

concerned govemment stakeholders. Moreover, diplomats may need to

develop 'back channel' contacts to influential personalities, sometimes
reaching even the heads of state or govemment. The home country has a
role to prepare its diplomats in conducting such interactions.
Apart from the government stakeholders the diplomats may also need to
maintain communication with the other non-state actors. In the economic
and cultural sectors, where both official agencies and private bodies are
influential, the diplomats have a catalytic i d coordination role - to
provide discrete leadership without possessing leadership authority
(Rana, 2004:75). In the recent times, ethnic groups have become a strong
diplomatic concern. Diplomats may also build a partnership with them.
At present, the influence of NGOs and other civil society organizations
in international affairs is well recognized. The diplomats may need to
interact with these non-state actors as well. Lastly, diplomats need to
maintain a close relation with leading academia, research institutes and
think tanks of the host country which will in turn provide a better
understanding of both the home and host country.
In recent times, diplomats function as the feedback provider to the home
state. Though it is one of the basic functions of the diplomats from the
very beginning, in the globalized world t h s has been intensified. The
principal recipient of the reports, analysis and policy recommendations is
the home government. The home state needs authentic information and
critical analysis to initiate further interaction with the host states. These
reports and feedbacks by the diplomats are necessary and important for
some specific reasons such as (i) the journals, a primary source of
analysed information, do not present the needed analysis and centers on
the perspective and interests of the home country; nor are they focus on
prognosis and recommendations; (ii) the media can not deliver news
which is not reportable under customary guidelines and (iii) the
diplomat's, mainly ambassador's comments take into account media
reports (Rana, 200439). For these above mentioned reasons the home
state relies on feedback from its diplomats posted at different states. The
diplomats are now playing the dual role as an actor in the bilateral
negotiation and as well as in the multilateral negotiation. It is evident that
the diplomats have to focus on the bilateral issues related to the host state
and the home state. At the same time, a diplomat serving at any capacity
may be asked by the home state to represent hls country in the
multilateral forum. This has been a major qualitative change in the
diplomatic practice in the age of globalization.
186
 Diplomacy in the Twenty First Century: Changing Dimensions and New Realities

It may not always be possible for a country to have embassies or high

commissions in each of the countries. In that case, a diplomat can be
authorized to look into the issues of a certain region where he is posted.
In this regard, a diplomat has to be an area expert and must know about
the prevailing political scenario of the region. Globalization process has
speeded up the process of regionalism. In the regional diplomatic
practice diplomats needs to make a balance between regionalism,
bilateralism and multilateralism. One of the tasks of the diplomats in the
globalized world is to monitor the performance of the actors involved in
the negotiation and diplomatic process. Before a diplomat is posted
anywhere he is briefed by the MoFA of the home state about his role in
the host state or forum. An action plan is developed including the tasks
expected to be completed by the diplomat. The diplomat has to follow
that time schedule to achieve the desired goals to serve the interest of the
home country.
A diplomat especially the Ambassador or High Commissioner has to
?lay the role of a leader in a mission. At present, it has become easier for
e diplomat to set the course of action as the methods of communication
have become cheap, easy and secure. Nonetheless, there are always
ckences of information leakage which might bring devastating impacts
o r 5 s rs!e:ions between and among the countries. A diplomat has to be
p r u d m ~:o overcome these problems. At the same time, a diplomat
should be wise io pro\-ide directions in emergency situations to the
others. In the present context. leadershp quality has become one of the
basic qualities of a diplomat.
Findings and limitations of new diplomacy
Though the new realities of the contemporary world tend to emphasize
1-n a new diplomacy, it has its limits. This new diplomacy, known as
?ublic diplomacy, does not trump flawed policies or weak political
Lsadership. Governments are constrained because much of what their
zi~izensand societies project, and much of what global publics perceive,
:E 5eyond government control. Results of public diplomacy can take
-. 5s: to acheve or may never be achleved at all. Also, success is
- - - .. -
--- - --. to measure, although not impossible with appropriate methods
.<

--
;
.-
- L
-..--.
- k i e n t resources. Often public diplomacy cannot overcome deep
diszgeernents or conflicts of interest. In the case of Iran, USA has been
:iying to use public diplomacy through its extensive broadcasting by
P I T Television and Radio Farda. Despite spending billions of dollars,
USA is yet to get any concrete result from this type of new diplomacy.
187
 The Chittagong University Journal of Social Sciences

While public diplomacy is in the ascendant, private, confidential

communication remains the backbone of diplomacy. The revolution in
communication technology tends to diminish the role of diplomats,
insofar as it has made direct communication between political leaders
much easier at the same time as leaders often have to react
instantaneously to international events, bypassing the diplomatic
establishment. On the other hand, diplomats are key agents in the
preparation and follow-up of summit meetings, at the same time as they
are adjusting to the new media landscape and learning to pursue "media
diplomacy." In a contemporary perspective, the changes brought by the
new communication technolo@ seem to overshadow aspects of
continuity in diplomatic communication. Yet these changes cannot be
seen as the culmination of any particular process. The pattern of
changing diplomacy we have attempted to show in this article is not
evolutionary or inevitable. These variations of diplomacy we have
distinguished reflect historical contingency rather than an inevitable,
teleological trajectory. Moreover, we found that the degree of change in
diplomatic communication is today often exaggerated in existing
literature. It is true that the accelerating speed and abundance of
information has both facilitated and complicated the traditional
information-gathering function of diplomacy. Diplomacy still rests on
the creative combination of verbal and nonverbal communication.
Whereas diplomatic signalling has traditionally been addressed to
exclusive and clearly delineated audiences, with a high degree of control
and possibilities to vary the message according to the audience, the
advent of new media has made the differentiation among audiences more
difficult. On the other hand, the gathering of signalling instruments has
been expanded. In short, the changes resulting from the revolution in
communication technology should not blind us to the timeless features of
diplomatic communication.
Concluding Remarks:
The dimensions of diplomacy in twenty first century have changed to
keep pace with new realities in both international and domestic arena. In
one hand, the bilateral, government to government approach that has
traditionally been the vital part of diplomacy is often inadequate to
address new threats like narcotics trafficking, environmental degradation
and international terrorism. These threats are almost always.regiona1 and
often global in scope. In order to address these new challenges, an
internationally coordinated diplomacy is necessary. Therefore
+ 188
Diplomacy in the Twenty First Century: Changing Dimensions and New Realities

governments have improved their ability to address transnational threats

7
by forming coalitions with 'non-state actors - multinational corporations,
XGOs, mT7 World Bank and the LMF. On the other hand, citizens are
becoming more concerned about the course of foreign policy, as the
forces of globalization and technological development have intense
impact on all aspects of life. Diplomacy is an instrument of governments;
and in states where the government is broadly answerable to the citizens,
or at least subject to their periodic electoral vote, the aims for which
diplomacy is used are matters that the citizen should decide for himself.
An understanding of how the diplomatic dialogue works, of what it can
and cannot achieve, helps to make the choices more informed and to
produce the results which the citizen wishes to accomplish. Given this
circumstances, we want to conclude that, the unprecedented growth of
globalization has brought a significant change in the nature and pattern
of diplomacy and increased the importance of public diplomacy.
However, with considerable transition, traditional diplomatic
communication is still relevant in contemporary international system.

References:
Bemdge, G.R. and James, Alan( 2001), A dictionary of Diplomacy,
Palgrave Mcmillan, New York, P-62
Cf. H.E. Catto, Jr (2001), "The End of Diplomacy?" Information
Impacts Magazine (www.cisp.ore/imp/iuly 2001I07 0 1catto.htm).
C f. Jonsson (2005), "Diplomatic Signaling in the Amarna Letters, in "

Essence of Diplomacy, Palgrave Mcmillan, New York, p. 203.

Cooper, Andrew, (2008), Global governance and Diplomacy, Palgrave
Mcrnillan, New York
Christer, Jonsson and Hall Martin, Essence of Diplomacy, Hampshare:
?algrave Macmillan, 2005, p-94
- .
- :::en Cf. Y. (1 986), Media Diplomacy: The Foreign Office
.- in the Mass
-
t- ~i:vzunicationAge, London: Frank Cass, p.24.

(1983), The New. Diplomacy, London: Weidenfeld & Xicolson, .

E 3 m -1.
?. 356.
 The Chittagong University Journal of Social Sciences

E.H. Potter (2002), "Canada and the New Public Diplomacy,"

Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, no. 81, The Hague: Netherlands
Institute of International Relations "Clingendael", p. 3.
Gotlieb, Allan (1991), '1'0Be with You in a Minute, Mr. Ambassador: ' '
The Education of a Canadian Diplomat in Washington, Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
J. Kurbalija, (1999), "Diplomacy in the Age of Information
Technology," in J. Melissen (ed.), Innovations in Diplomatic Practice,
London: Macmillan and New York: St. Martin's Press, p. 185.
K~rlantzick~ Joshua (2007), Charm Offensive: How China 's Soft Power
is Transforming the World, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Leonard, Mark (2002), Public Diplomacy, London: The Foreign Policy
Centre, p. 50.
Leonard, Mark (2002), "Diplomacy by Other Means," Foreign Policy, 01
September, 2002, retrieved from
1 /diplomacy by other means?page=0,2
http://www.forei~npolicy.com/articles/2002/09/0

Leonard, Mark with C. Stead and C. Smewing, (2002), Public

Diplomacy, London: The Foreign Policy Centre. p. 6.
M. Steams (1 996), 'Talking to Strangers: Improving American
Diplomacy at Home and Abroad, ' Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, p. 113
M. Wight (1 978), Power Politics, Leicester: Leicester University Press.
p. 113.
Melissen, Jan (2006) 'Reflections on Public Diplomacy Today ', speech at
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Turkey, Ankara, 6 February,
available at
http://www.clin~endael.dpublications/2006/20O60206 cdsp online me
1issen.pdf
R. Cohen, (1987) Theatre of Power: The Art of Diplomatic Signaling,
London and New York: Longman, p. 20.
R. Cohen, (1998) "Putting Diplomatic Studies on the Map," Diplomatic
Studies Programme Newsletter, Leicester University
3iplornacyin the Twenty First Century: Changing Dimensions and New Realities

Rana, Kishna S. (2007), Asian Diplomacy: The Foreign Ministries of

China, India, Japan, Singapore and Thailand, Oxford University Press,
Sew Delhi, India. p.2.
Rana, Kishna S. (2007), Asian Diplomacy: The Foreign Ministries of
China, India, Japan, Singapore and Thailand, Oxford University Press,
New Delhi, Indir-.p. 1.

Rana, Kishna S. (2007), Asian Diplomacy: The Foreign Ministries of

China, India, Japan, Singapore and Thailand, Oxford University Press,
New Delhi, India. p.3.

Rana, Kishna S. (2004), The 21" Century Ambassador: Plenipotentiary

to ChiefExecutive, DiploFoundation, Malta and Geneva. p.5.

Rana, Kishna S. (2004), The 21" Century Ambassador: Plenipotentiary

to Chief Executive, DiploFoundation, Malta and Geneva. p.75.

Rana, Kishna S. (2004), The 21"' Century Ambassador: Plenipotentiary

to Chief Executive, DiploFoundation, Malta and Geneva. p.89.
T. 0 m (2002), Va$& diplomati? Why Diplomacy?, Stockholm:
Wahlstrom & Widstrand, p. 29.