Skip to content

Prince Harry – A Successful Celebrity Diplomat







Prince Harry is an important celebrity diplomat of theUnited Kingdom. He proved it during his public and cultural diplomacy mission in hisCaribbeantour in March 2012.

Not only Harry but all the royal family is an important asset for theUKpublic and cultural diplomacy. For example, Prince Harry was sent to the Caribbean at the beginning of March 2012 by the Queen to improve international relations between the UK and Caribbean countries. It plays an important role to make theUKmore attractive inCaribbeancountries (Lydall, 2012, 3). The Royal Family is the asset for promotion of theUKabroad. TheUKlost colonies but the Commonwealth create framework of collaboration between theUKand former colonies. The queen as a head of the Commonwealth plays a very important role in communication with public abroad.


Public and cultural diplomacy play very important role in promotion theUKabroad, improvement of nation branding and achieving the goals of foreign policy. Improvement of nation branding means to improve perception about theUKand increasing of attraction of the country abroad by communication a fresh image of theUK.

The aim of the British public and cultural diplomacy is to improveBritain’s image abroad and at home, to promote theUK’s values, to make it more attractive for foreign audiences and to shape public opinion in accordance with the national and business interests of theUnited Kingdom.

According to Cambon, “Diplomacy will always have ambassadors and ministers; the question is whether it will have diplomats” (Cambon cited in Khana, 2011, 30). Nowadays, both traditional diplomacy and public and cultural diplomacy are very important to achieve foreign policies goals. Celebrity diplomats are important, useful and necessary at the present time because they possess prestige which helps to achieve success in diplomacy. On the other hand, traditional diplomats play also very important role in international relations at the present time. For example, US ambassador Richard Holbrooke, known as “The Buldozer” successfully brought Serbs to the negotiation table to end conflict in former Yugoslavia in 1995 (Khana, 2011, 35). He played also an important role in theUSdiplomacy during the Afghan war. When Holbrooke died on13 December 2010, Hilary Clinton proclaimed at his Memorial that he understood that in the end the only solution of conflict inAfghanistanwas political (Cowper-Coles, 2011, 275).



Cowper-Coles,Sh. (2011). Cables from Kabul: The Inside Story of the West’s Afghanistan Campaign, Harper Press, London

Khanna,P. (2011). How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance, Random House,New York

Lydall,R. (2012). “Hugging Harry the Diamond diplomat.”, The Evening Standard, March 7, 3

Critical Review of the Danish Foreign Ministry’s ‘Danmark i Dialog Med Verden’


Due to the accelerating speed of globalization and the communications revolution the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has recognised the importance of grabbing the prominence of public and cultural diplomacy to promote a more positive image of Denmark abroad. Reasoned the major diplomatic setback Denmark experienced as a result of the Cartoon Crisis, Denmark has assigned greater priority to the MENA-region as a crucial strategic target of PCD.

The report, ‘Danmark i Dialog med Verden’ (Denmark in Dialogue with the World) provides a range of examples of public and cultural diplomacy initiatives around the world with a particular focus on the MENA-region. A special emphasis on cooperation with non-state actors such as NGOs, companies, interest-organisations and the media is articulated. 

In concordance with Nicholas Cull’s statement that action speaks louder than words[1], the report attempts to draw attention to Denmark’s top position among donors of development assistance to promote an image of Denmark as a development assistance role model. This can prove to be a rather effective strategy as Denmark as of 2009 was among the only five nations who have met the International Aid Target of 0.7% of GNP.

The report promotes the necessity of nation branding as it aims to project its ‘50 years of participation in peacekeeping operations and defense efforts, a top spot on the quantity and quality of development assistance and a place in the first ranks in the struggle for human rights are the main motives in the image of Denmark’s global engagement[2].’This constitutes a part of the idea of ‘borderless responsibility’ which attaches importance to stability, peace and democracy aimed at international organizations, opinion-makers, decision-makers and the broad public in selected countries. It is obvious that the report finds its inspiration domestically. Because Denmark’s job market model flexicurity (a contraction of the English words ‘flexibility’ and ‘security’) has been promoted as the road to economic growth and employment by the European Commission, Denmark has used this as a public diplomacy tool in Greece in order to generate better acquaintance with Danish experiences and expertise in this area. The Danish welfare model is something it has in common with other Scandinavian countries but Denmark has been more eager than for instance Norway and Sweden to market this image. Hence, it can be argued that the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs truly comprehends the importance of congruence between words and deeds adding enhanced credibility to the country’s efforts abroad.

Project Hip Hop Palestine is directly aimed at resurrecting the image of Denmark in Palestine where 59% of the population view Denmark as an enemy of Islam and only 4% believe that the Danish government handled the cartoon crisis appropriately[3]. The initiative is one among many and is characterised as ‘offbeat’ remaining apolitical but cultural in nature where ‘intercultural dialogue’ often occurs in the rhetoric. To enhance this intercultural dialogue, the report and its Palestinian collaborators have in particular appreciated the credibility that Danish youths with Palestinian backgrounds bring to the dissemination of information about Denmark and hence these cultural non-state ambassadors comprise an essential part of the project. The primary goal of the project, which has also involved song contests, has been to raise the prospects of Palestinian participation in the Eurovision Song Contest. The success of the project has been so highly-profiled that even Israeli media has picked up on it.

Project Hip Hop Palestine is part of a larger initiative called Det Arabiske Initiativ (The Arabian Initiative) whose purpose it is to create a foundation of strengthened dialogue (two-way communication), understanding and cooperation between Denmark and the Arab world to support ongoing local processes of reform.

Because Denmark as a nation initially failed to understand the implications of the Cartoon Crisis, this report constitutes a crucial effort to rectify that mistake. Denmark has understood that it’s success as a nation, also domestically due to its large Muslim population,  is dependent on its image abroad leading to an appreciation of mutual understanding and cooperation across borders.


[1] N. J. Cull, ‘Public Diplomacy: Seven Lessons for its Future from its Past’, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2010, p. 14.

[2] This part is translated.

[3] Independent Media Review Analysis,


Jazz Diplomacy and the Cold War


At the height of the Cold War years, “Jazz Diplomacy”, proved to be the most powerful tool of the United States to diminish both the credibility and appeal of Communism beyond the Eastern bloc (Rosenberg Jonathan: 2012). From the 1950s to the 1970s however, the U.S State Department sponsored programs; sending its finest jazz musicians to the far end corners of the world (Costigliola Frank: 1984)  . Louis Armstrong, Benny Goodman and Dizzy Gillespie among others toured in more than 35 countries from Eastern Europe, to the Former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Asia and Africa (–Promoting-America-in-the-Cold-War-Era_51802.html) in order to win the hearts and mind of people as well as to promote a positive view of America as a Democratic nation free of racism.

Moscow, Soviet Union 1962 [Goodman Benny

Under the U.S State Department’s Office of Information and Cultural Affairs, ‘Voice of America’ offered each weak countless hours of jazz music, which became the informal hymn for many Soviets and “kept hopes of freedom alive in the darkest days of oppression in communist Czechoslovakia” pointed out Havel at the White House Millennium Evening in 2000 ( Therefore, jazz as an instrument of American cultural diplomacy, transformed the U.S -Soviets relations and also reshaped the image of democracy in the world, particularly for those living under Soviet Communism. The result of which had far more positive influential  impacts than initially imagined. Jazz music successfully opened the doors towards a better understanding of ‘American Culture’ by offering a unique way of connecting with people; transcending political and language barriers. In sum, we can argue that there is no doubt that jazz  diplomacy played a key role in promoting a positive image of America abroad during the Cold War.

Cairo, Egypt 1961 [Amrstrong Louis



-Ambassador Cynthia P. Schneider, Cultural Diplomacy: Why It Matters, What It Can and Cannot — Do? Short Course on Culture Industries, Technologies, and Policies, Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, August 30, 2006:

-Cultural Diplomacy and The National Interest; In Search of a 21st-Century Perspective, Arts Industries Policy Forum. Available at:

-Costigliola Frank: (1984), “Awkward Domination; American Political, Economic, and Cultural Relations with Europe, 1919-1933”, pp.167-182, Cornell University Press.

-Jonathan Rosenberg: America on the World Stage: Music and Twentieth-Century U.S. Foreign Relations, Diplomatic History, (Jan2012), Vol. 36 Issue 1, p65-69

-Jazz Diplomacy: Promoting America in the Cold War Era:–Promoting-America-in-the-Cold-War-Era_51802.html

New Zealand’s Cultural Diplomacy


Cultural diplomacy is a very ambiguous term as its aims truly overlaps with the traditional public diplomacy, propaganda and nation branding (Gienow-Hecht Jessica et al.: 2010). Traditionally, it  meant ‘high culture’;

implying arts, literature, theatre, dance and music  but it now includes activities aimed for mass audiences called ‘popular culture’ (Mark Simon 2009). However, unlike this little puzzlement, some have define cultural diplomacy as  “the deployment of a state’s culture in support of its foreign policy goals or diplomacy” ( which implies that not only it is a matter of foreign policy, aimed to further the state’s national interests abroad but also a tool of interacting with the outside world by promoting a positive image of the country. It does that by endorsing the cultural aspect of a country; language for instance but it can also take the form of exchange between people as well as academics in order to foster mutual understanding ( In the case of New Zealand’s cultural diplomacy however, the Ministry of Culture and Heritage has putted more emphasis on the practices contributing more to the advancement of their national interests rather than that enhancing mutual or international understanding (Simon Mark: 2009). However, the New Zealand’s CDIP ‘Cultural Diplomacy International Programme’, established in 2004 sought to associate the nation branding to cultural diplomacy in order to demonstrate to investors, buyers as well as international media that New Zealand, in addition to its creativity and innovation, is also a technologically advanced country (Ibid). This insight of New Zealand is largely associated to its tourism brand which promote it as a ‘clean and green’ tourist destination with a modern economy and an exciting culture which seems to very attractive for international business investment (  At the 2005 World Expo in Japan, New Zealand was portrayed as a great land of natural beauty as well as a creative and technologically sophisticated country during which the group ‘Kapa Haka’ of the Maori culture performed every day (Simon Mark: 2009), the purpose of which was to broaden the Japanese perceptions of New Zealand.


–  Gienow-Hecht Jessica C.E and Donfried Mark C.: (2010), Searching for a Cultural Diplomacy”, pp.3-27 and pp. 162-175, Berghahn Books.

–  MacDonald Katherine: “Expression and Emotion, Cultural Diplomacy and Nation Branding in New Zealand”, Victoria University of Wellington, March 2011. Available at: Accessed on the 27th March 2012.

–  Simon Mark: “Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, A Greater Role for Cultural Diplomacy”, Netherlands Institute on International Relations ‘Clingendael’, April 2009. Available at: Accessed on the 23.03.2012

– Simon Mark: “A Comparative Study of the Cultural Diplomacy of Canada, New Zealand and India”, Research Space Auckland. Available at: Accessed on the 15th March 2012

China’s Response to Western Culture


The increasing influence of American culture: popular music, movies, food, exhibitions to the Chinese young population has led the government to take actions (Edward Wong,2012). In addition to its strict policy on the importation of cultural goods, the present Chinese leader; President Hu Jintao published an astonishing essay on January 3th 2012 in the famous magazine ‘Seeking The Truth’ in which he strongly advocated “We must clearly see that international hostile forces are intensifying the strategic plot of westernizing and dividing China, and ideological and cultural fields are the focal areas of their long-term infiltration” ( and he added “We should deeply understand the seriousness and complexity of the ideological struggle, always sound the alarms and remain vigilant, and take forceful measures to be on guard and respond” (ibid). This clarified that the Chinese government in order to save its culture would have to both promote as well as strengthen their cultural heritage and values.  However, like the French’s ‘Alliance Francaise’ and the German’s ‘Goethe-Institut’, China chose to promote its language, ‘Mandarin’ as a tool to reshape its influence worldwide as well as to advance their public diplomacy agenda (Seib, 2012). Though, its first institute was established in 2004, there are now over 320 Confucius Institutes in about 96 countries, offering a variety of activities, ranging from music, cooking, Chinese traditional medicine, their history and culture and above all, teaching Mandarin (Wey-Shen Siow M.:2011). But how successful the Confucius Institute been in transforming people’s perceptions about China? Well, for some it is nothing but a new form of the Chinese government’s propaganda. And yet for others, unlike its success in promoting both their language and culture beyond their borders, the lack of efficiency and a good degree of professionalism in some centres has led many students to drop the courses (Ibid). Thus, from this point of view, we can argue it still got a long way to go.


  1. Alterman Jon B., Bliss Katherine E., Chow Edward C. et al, Chinese Soft Power and Its Implications for the United States, Competition and Cooperation in the Developing World, A Report of the CSIS Smart Power Initiative, March 2009: on the 8th February 2012.
  1. Blanchard Christopher M. et al.: Comparing Global Influence; China and U.S Diplomacy, Foreign Aid, Trade and Investment in the Developing World, CRS Report for Congress, August 15th 2008. Available at: Accessed on the 7th February 2012
  1. Edward Wong: “China’s President Lashes Out at Western Culture”, The New York Times, January 3th 2012. Available at: Accessed on the 17th March
  1. Seib Philip: “Intellectual Containment and U.S.-China Relations”, posted on 2th March 2012 at 2:47om. Available at: Accessed on 15th March 2012
  1. Wey-Shen Siow Maria, (2011): “China’s Confucius Institutes: Crossing the

River by Feeling the Stones”, Asia Pacific Bulletin, Number 91, January 6 2011

US Public Diplomacy During the Cold War


Under the 1936 Convention for the Promotion of Inter-American Cultural Relations, the government agreed to establish a model of exchange programs as a public diplomacy tool aimed to counter Soviet influence during the Cold War (US State Department, 2005). This agenda, known as “The Fulbright Program”, first enacted in 1946 consisted of enhancing educational and cultural exchanges between the US and other countries in order to foster mutual understanding (Kennon H. Et al., 2009). Many people including students, teachers, scholars and even leaders came to the United States under the International Visitors Program to share the American cultural and experiences. This was quite effective as many world leaders among whom Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Afghan President Harmid Karzai and many more made their ways through this program (Ibid). Thus, it was a very successful method of engagement with foreign people for long-term connections.  Nevertheless, “Since 1993, budgets have fallen by nearly 30 percent, staff has been cut my about 30% overseas and 20% in the U.S, and dozens of cultural centres, libraries and branch posts have been closed” (  This implies that it was no longer the priority since the cultural Cold War battle was over. Does that entail that the U.S only uses their diplomacy tool in triggered situations? Well, it is not to be excluded.


Ambassador Cynthia P. Schneider, Cultural Diplomacy: Why It Matters, What It Can and Cannot — Do? Short Course on Culture Industries, Technologies, and Policies, Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, August 30, 2006: Accesed on the 18th March 2012

Cultural Diplomacy and The National Interest; In Search of a 21st-Century Perspective, Arts Industries Policy Forum. Available at: Asseced on the 17th April 2012

Harvey B. Feigenbaum: Globalization and Cultural Diplomacy, The George Washington University, Centre for Arts and Culture, pp.2-53. Available at: Accessed on the 19th April 2012

Kennon H. Nakamura and Matthew C. Weed: Us Public Diplomacy: Background and Current Issues, December 18th 2009: Accessedon the 20th April 2012

Voices of America: US Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century


Lord’s “Voices of America” report published in 2008, highlights the need to improve American public diplomacy tools  in a growing interconnected world in a bid to re-promote itself in light with its negative records in many parts of the world as well as to be better equipped to further their national interests. To achieve this goal, will be required new strategies aimed to engage, cooperate and persuade foreign audiences[1].

At first, Lord’s suggestions and recommendations seems both very convincing and rational, because it embodies concrete actions towards building better relations with foreign public by making use of the media and social networks. The stress on the importance of long-term relations, takes us back to Melissen’s (2005), “The New Public Diplomacy” who provides a good account on the relevance of ‘two-way communication’ or ‘dialogue’, the foundation of all strong relationships[2] . This implies Lord’s claim that “the views of foreign populations matter”[3], because only through this way can the United States realistically seek to adjust their reflection on the world[4]. To that end, the U.S will first need to be credible and get strong support, which may not be an easy task after the Abu Ghraib scandal and human rights violations at Guantanamo[5]. This complexity of American adaption argues Lord “when the United States is not just disliked but also distrusted, when not just our policies but our moral authority is questioned, it is politically difficult for foreign leaders to support U.S policies and potentially popular to block them”[6]. However to improve that situation, Lord strongly believes that with the support of both local and foreign audiences, the United States will be best able to understand foreign concerns and incorporate those into their public diplomacy strategy.

Nevertheless, despite having recognized the improvement of certain aspects of U.S diplomacy tools, it seems that the true underlying goal of this report is to advance U.S interests.  However, Lord says “to protect America’s moral authority, as well as the trust and even power that authority conveys, our policies should be in line with our highest ideals. They must also be constructed to advance U.S interests, taking into account the full range of costs and benefits”[7]. This implies two things. First, the report seems to overestimate American traditional values in the world stage and as such fails to consider the possibility of its refutation by others. Are American values universal? Are they casted and seen by others as do Americans? Today, the United States need to discuss more than ever before the interpretations of their actions abroad and as such acknowledge the consideration of values, perceptions and opinions of foreign audience without which the struggle to better their image abroad would be insignificant.

Overall, the United States need to build strong and concrete engagement based upon genuine dialogue that recognizes differences in terms values, historical perspective and cultural tradition.  To that end, they need to both recognise and accept that there are others ways to do things.


Lord Kristin M.: “Voices of America; U.S Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century”, November 2008, Foreign Policy at Brookings. Available at: Accessed on the 30th April 2012 at 13:12

Melissen. J. (2005): “The new public diplomacy: soft power in international relations”, Palgrave MacMillan.

[1] Lord, 2008

[2] Melissen, 2005

[3] Lord,2008: 8

[4] Ibid, p.9

[5] Ibid, p.10

[6] Ibid,p.8

[7] Ibid, p.3