Key Values, Philosophies, and Models of Ethics for Public Diplomacy
Scholars have been discussing the ethical principles associated with interna-tional relations since the 1980s (Harbour, 1998). Similarly, it is critical to examine the ethical choices that public diplomacy practitioners make and the moral consequences of their decisions (Zhang & Swartz, 2009). Some ex-amples of the ethical decisions include those related to nuclear monopoly and nuclear weapons, hunger and poverty, population policy, human rights, health issues such as avian influenza pandemic, HIV/AIDS, breast cancer, and heart disease (Zhang & Swartz, 2009).
Researchers have identified various values, philosophies, and models that may guide decision making in public diplomacy. Five most critical ethical values for public diplomacy professionals to abide by are credibility, dialogue, openness, respect, and truthfulness (Fitzpatrick, 2006; Fitzpatrick & Gauth-ier, 2001). Apart from the ethical values, researchers also identified two nor-mative moral philosophies relevant to public diplomacy practices: (1) deon-tology and (2) utilitarianism (Zhang & Swartz, 2009).
Deontology, conceived by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), emphasizes duty, respect for others, rationality, and moral obligations of human beings (Bowen, 2004a, 2004b, 2005; Crawley & Sinclair, 2003; De George, 2006;
Harshman & Harshman, 1999; Martinson, 1994; Smudde, 2005; Sullivan, 1994). Autonomy, as one of the primary theoretical concepts of Kantian de-ontology, denotes that rationality enables decision makers to make moral judgments autonomously (Bowen & Heath, 2005; Sullivan, 1989). Being autonomous, human beings can make morally right decisions that are not biased by the interests or advantages of any individual or organization (De George, 1999, 2006; Sullivan, 1989).
Deontological philosophers also use the principle of universality to assess an ethical behavior. As Kant (1785/1964) stated, “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal
law” (p. 88). Universality stipulates that rational and objective human beings should apply the maxims of ethical reasoning that are generic across time, culture, and social norms (Bowen, 2004a, 2005; De George, 1999). More-over, universality also indicates the reciprocity of moral obligations between people (Sullivan, 1994). It is the moral duty of human beings to reason and make ethical judgments based on universal moral maxims (Bowen, 2004a, 2004b, 2005). Dignity and respect for others are also embedded in the Kantian philosophy—“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end” (Kant, 1785/1964, p. 96). All human beings should be seen as “an end in themselves” rather than “a means to an end” (Bowen, 2005, p. 197).
Finally, a morally good will, as the last key imperative of deontology, sug-gests that autonomous and objective human beings make ethical decisions based on their moral duty rather than prudential or selfish concerns (Paton, 1967; Sullivan, 1994). The impact of deontology on public diplomacy is con-siderable (Brown, 1992). For instance, public diplomacy programs focused on human rights should be deontological (Harbour, 1998).
Utilitarianism, on the other hand, is cconsequence oriented (Derek, 1986; Zhang & Swartz, 2009). Basically, the adopted means are justified by the ends they can lead to. Classic examples of utilitarian public diplomacy were the U.S. policy toward the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the international environment treaty the Kyoto Protocol (Zhang & Swartz, 2009, p. 384). The U.S. government rejected both treaties because of their consequences for national security and economic interests. Nevertheless, most of the world nations expressed assent and approved the treaties (Zhang
& Swartz, 2009). The moral framework that overseas publics used to assess these public diplomacy programs was deontological—the treaties should have been ratified because they preserved the environment and protected human rights. As a consequence, the national image of the United States was tar-nished. In conclusion, public diplomacy programs based on the moral phi-losophy of utilitarianism cannot help cultivate national reputation or secure mutual understanding (Zhang & Swartz, 2009).
In addition to the two dominant moral philosophies, the ethics models for public relations can also be applied in public diplomacy practices (Fitz-patrick & Gauthier, 2001; Zhang & Swartz, 2009). Researchers identified the following four models of ethical public relations. First, the attorney/ad-vocacy model indicates that public relations professionals play the role of an attorney and are expected to advocate for the interests of their organiza-tions (Zhang & Swartz, 2009). Second, in the responsible advocacy model,
professionals should protect the interests of their clients at large and strive to serve the interests of their clients’ publics or the society as a whole (Fitzpat-rick & Gauthier, 2001). Third, the two-way communication model argues that in order to practice public relations ethically, professionals should engage publics of their client organizations in dialogic communication, use open communication to negotiate with them to resolve conflicts if there are any, achieve mutual understanding between organizations and their publics, and cultivate long-term, trusting organization-public relationships (Zhang &
Swartz, 2009). Finally, the enlightened self-interest model suggests that public relations practitioners and their client organizations should act to promote the interests of others (e.g., their internal and external stakeholders) or the interests of a bigger group they belong to because what they do will ulti-mately serve their own self-interests (Schultz, Yunus, Khosla, Scher, & Glad-well, 2012; Zhang & Swartz, 2009).
The idea of public diplomacy as image cultivation is compatible with the responsible advocacy model—to maintain a favorable national image of a country, its public diplomacy programs need to serve the interests of its overseas audiences while promoting its self-interests. The definition of public diplomacy as international communication to promote dialogue and achieve mutual understanding dictates two-way communication to resolve potential conflicts and build mutually beneficial relationships between public diploma-cy sponsoring organizations and their publics. Finally, the function of public diplomacy to promote Global Public Goods (GPG) fits into the model of enlightened self-interest. To devote its public diplomacy programs to ad-vance global welfare, organizations will ultimately benefit from their altruistic endeavors (Zhang & Swartz, 2009). Two-way communication distinguish-es public diplomacy from propaganda (Izadi, 2009). As Melissen (2005) argued, “public diplomacy is similar to propaganda in that it tries to per-suade people what to think, but it is fundamentally different from propaganda in the sense that public diplomacy also listens to what people have to say”
(p. 18). To achieve genuine dialogue, public diplomacy should adopt two-way symmetrical public relations rather than relying on one-two-way flow of information and manipulative image management. Two-way symmetrical communication should be adopted as a viable framework for ethical public diplomacy (Izadi, 2009). Two-way symmetrical communication is proposed as the most ethical way of practicing public relations because its collabora-tive/symmetrical nature enables organizations to accomplish their goals and simultaneously to take into consideration the needs of their strategic publics (Botan, 1993; J. E. Grunig, 1992, 2001). By practicing two-way symmetri-cal communication, organizations disseminate open and honest information
and actively seek feedback from their targeted audiences (Smudde, 2005).
Two-way symmetry in public diplomacy means that both parties (the spon-soring organization of a public diplomacy program and its publics) should be involved in dialogic interactions and be open to changes if they further the interests of both parties (Izadi, 2009).
(Un)ethical Cases of Public Diplomacy in International Public Relations
Public diplomacy has been widely conceptualized as a symbolic process of interactions in which nations actively negotiate and construct their image through various public relations strategies targeted toward their audiences (Cai, Lee, & Pang, 2009; Hiebert, 2005; Zhang, 2006). Scholars have dis-cussed cases about how nations rebuilt their image after crises and identified insights for ethical public diplomacy.
In 2003, the Chinese government faced a severe onslaught from the in-ternational society because of its refusal to open lines of communication and its ignorance of the perceptions and emotions of its strategic publics during the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) crisis (Pang, Jin, & Cameron, 2004). In 2007, a “Made in China” crisis exploded with a report submit-ted to the Unisubmit-ted States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in which a Canadian-based manufacturer informed China that its pet food products were unsafe (Cai et al., 2009; Coghlan, 2007). The crisis escalated into a big-ger one when more consumer products (e.g., toothpastes, toys, candies, and pajamas) came within the range of recalls and bans (Cai et al., 2009). Having learned lessons from its 2003 SARS crisis, China adopted a series of corrective actions and responded to the accusations coherently and consistently (see Benoit, 1997, 2004; Lu, 1994). Several tenets of ethics were visible in the Chinese government’s public diplomacy efforts: (1) open and interactive com-munication (Cai et al., 2009); (2) speaking with one consistent voice in various media outlets (Cai et al., 2009; Choong, 2009; Lawrence, 2007; Signitzer
& Coombs, 1992); and (3) credible messaging (Hiebert, 2005; Van Dyke &
Verčič, 2008; Yun, 2006).
Drawing upon Habermas’s (1984) Theory of Communicative Action, Zöllner (2006) proposed “dialogue” as the ethical basis of the public diplo-macy efforts of German government via media communication with the Ar-abic world after the 9/11 attack (p. 160). Dialogue was also projected as the underlying national value and myth of new, post-Nazi Germany. The Theory of Communicative Action implies that, in order to achieve understanding as the goal of public diplomacy, a nation needs to assure that:
1. The statements [that a nation] made are true [i.e., truth];
2. The [communication] act, with respect to an existing normative context, is right (and that this normative context is legitimate) [i.e., rightness];
3. The manifest intention of [the nation] is meant as it is expressed [i.e., sincerity]. (Zöllner, 2006, p. 168; based on Habermas, 1984, p. 99)
For the principle of truth for statements, Germany needs to provide valid public diplomacy activities (e.g., lectures, youth, academic and sport exchanges, cultural and art exhibitions, language training, radio, television and online programs) to inform the Arabic world about Germany’s polit-ical, cultural, and economic affairs and to build a true image of the new, post-Nazi Germany (based on Zöllner, 2006, pp. 168–171). The validity and truthfulness lie in the conditions under which the objective image of the nation can connect with what is acceptable in the Arabic world (based on Zöllner, 2006, p. 168). Second, as for the rightness for legitimately administered public diplomacy programs, the best thing that Germany can do is to make sure all its communication programs in the Arabic world are right in relation to the socially prescribed rules, norms, and regulations in the society (based on Zöllner, 2006, p. 168). Lastly, the sincerity of Ger-many’s public diplomacy programs is determined by the correspondence between what the German government actually means to achieve and its expressed intention for reaching dialogue and understanding (based on Zöllner, 2006, p. 168).
Scholars have called for a shift of public diplomacy’s focus from infor-mation dissemination (one-way communication) and control of communi-cation environment (one-way communicommuni-cation) to network and engagement (two-way communication) (Izadi, 2009; Zaharna, 2005). The traditional public diplomacy follows a “hierarchical state-centric model” of international communication; whereas, new public diplomacy functions in a “network [engagement] environment” where target audiences of public diplomacy programs participate in receiving information as well as generating feedback and content (Izadi, 2009, p. 37; Zaharna, 2005, p. 12). The top-down mentality for information dissemination ought to be replaced by dialogic engagement (Fitzpatrick, 2007). New public diplomacy programs should be character-ized by a more equal distribution of resources and more coordinated com-munication between target audiences and state administrations (or non-state actors such as nongovernmental organizations) (Hocking, 2005). For achieving credibility, genuine dialogue, integrity, authenticity, shared
mean-ings and values underlying new public diplomacy, public diplomacy profes-sionals are expected to listen to the concerns of other parties and respect their opinions, via both actual behavioral interactions and mediated communica-tion (global news media and social media) (Riordan, 2005).
Charlotte Beers, the former chief of public diplomacy under U.S.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, developed the “Shared Values” initia-tives/campaign targeted toward Muslim countries (Plaisance, 2005, p. 250). Based on the theories of propaganda, Plaisance (2005) analyzed the ethical shortcomings of the campaign. The campaign, in general, treated its Muslim publics as a means to its end—“to serve [the United States’] broader policy objectives,” rather than taking into consideration the needs and preferences of the target audiences or engaging them in dynamic interactions (p. 250).
Similar to all the other human communication acts, public diplomacy programs are subject to high standards of ethical assessment (Black, 2001;
Cunningham, 1992, 2002). The “Shared Values” public diplomacy cam-paign raised serious ethical concerns (Plaisance, 2005). First of all, as Altheide and Johnson (1980) and Postman (1985) argued, propaganda, as a special mode of organizational communication, is deeply rooted in the utilitar-ian philosophy of selective truth and information dissemination. To build its national image of being “credible” and “trustworthy,” a nation’s public diplomacy programs (when propaganda is central) may choose to present part of realities in various mass media communication narratives—the state-ments are all true, but not the whole truth. This is obviously subject to ethical questioning—the nature of communication is then “disfigur[ed]” if truth is
“instrumentaliz[ed]” (Cunningham, 2002, p. 141). Truth and truthfulness remain as a pivotal ethical standard to evaluate public diplomacy programs (Plaisance, 2005). In particular, truth and truthfulness denote accuracy, clari-ty, correctness, validiclari-ty, and disproval of any forms of falsiclari-ty, incompleteness, and distortion (Cunningham, 2002). The “Shared Values” campaign violated the above-mentioned ethical principle:
The American Muslims featured in the videos certainly may be truthful in their claims about American egalitarianism as they have experienced it. The videos of-fer these claims as proof of a larger truth: that persecution does not exist in this country. A less blatant “instrumentalization” of truth, however, might di-rectly address the simultaneous realities of the post-Sept. 11 incarceration of more than 700 uncharged Muslims and the new, controversial policy of the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service (renamed the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services) that requires Middle Easterners to register with the government (Immigration and Naturalization Service News Release, 2003). This
is not to criticize administration antiterror policy, but to point out the selective depiction of reality in a message campaign. (Plaisance, 2005, p. 263)
By presenting merely part of the truth about American egalitarianism, the practitioners of the public diplomacy campaign subjugated themselves to projecting the United States as credible and trustworthy, but lost sight of higher epistemic values including contemplating, reflecting, understanding, critiquing, and reasoning (Cunningham, 2002; Plaisance, 2005).
Secondly, based on deontology, Cunningham (2002) suggested that the constituents or publics of public diplomacy programs are not means to an end but the end itself. In propaganda, truth is very often reduced to state-ments that are conducive to reaching the desired ends (Ellul, 1981; Snow, 2003). Apart from the blurred distinction between truth and credibility, an-other questionable ethical facet of the “Shared Values” campaign is “Who or what is the means to which end?” (Plaisance, 2005, p. 263). Overall, the campaign treated its target audiences as means rather than ends—the selective portrayal of America’s egalitarianism in the campaign messages was not meant to achieve engaging dialogue or interactions enhancing mutual understand-ing between the United States and Muslims, but to accomplish the intended partisan advocacy, i.e., to influence the public opinions of Muslim audiences (Brancaccio, 2003).
Finally, modern propaganda programs adopt “influence talk[s]” that en-able target audiences to associate simple statements or storylines with their everyday lives (Combs & Nimmo, 1993, p. 86). Unfortunately, this “influ-ence talk” is not genuine communication because it is actually “the language of authority” short of “the logic of scientific proof” and “the logic of rhetori-cal argument” (Plaisance, 2005, p. 264). The “Shared Values” campaign was reduced to merely non-genuine communication, due to the fact that it only presented an idyllic vision of American egalitarianism and failed to depict the truth of historical and perpetuating inequality and discrimination in American society (Black, 2001; Plaisance, 2005).
Likewise, due to the perceived commonality between propaganda and public diplomacy, the U.S. public diplomacy programs in Iraq and Ar-ab-speaking countries have been widely criticized (Seib, 2009, p. 772). Seib (2009) argued that objectivity, accuracy, openness, and transparency as critical ethical standards should be firmly held by public diplomacy practitioners. To implement these standards in their practices, public diplomacy proponents should resist to plentiful temptations to stray from the ethical criteria—
“spreading false information, using communication tools to defame or provoke, interfering with transparency, and other tampering with the founda-tions of honesty” (p. 772).
The true public diplomacy that the United States practices should rely not only on political theories and international relations theories, but also on public relations theories focused on two-way symmetrical communication and community building (Kruckeberg & Vujnovic, 2005, p. 296). A propa-ganda worldview centers the United States at the hub of its communication and relationships that radiates outward to the rest of the world; in contrast, a public relations or community-building model situates America as part of the global social system that recognizes other nations as constituents or publics it needs to engage and cultivate long-term trusting relationships with (Krucke-berg & Vujnovic, 2005, p. 296).