Democracy Promotion and Public Diplomacy: US Efforts to Communicate with the Peoples of the Middle East in the Early Years of the 21st Century

Yıl 2024, , 53 - 69, 04.07.2024

Umut Yukaruç

https://doi.org/10.51763/uid.1498429

Öz

The attacks of 11 September 2001 led to a significant shift in the importance placed by the United States on the region of the Middle East in its overall foreign policy. The United States intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of the attacks, and the resulting policies negatively impacted its image more than ever before. While combating terrorism, the United States also sought to engage with the people of the Middle East in order to promote democracy within the region. In addition, public diplomacy has emerged as an effective method for democracy promotion, with the objective of reaching the people of the region through the use of new communication channels. Some theories view this approach as a logical choice. However, in the first years of the 21st century, the image of the United States continued to be negative among the peoples of the region. The article discusses the role of public diplomacy as an important tool for democracy promotion and attempts to explain why the American image in the Middle East has not improved through this approach alone. To this end, it first defines the concept of democracy promotion and then analyses the potential role of public diplomacy in this context. Finally, it analyses the US public diplomacy efforts until 2005 and discusses the effectiveness of these strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Democracy Promotion, Public Diplomacy, United States, Middle East

Demokrasinin Teşviki ve Kamu Diplomasisi: ABD'nin 21. Yüzyılın İlk Yıllarında Orta Doğu Halklarıyla İletişim Çabaları

Öz

11 Eylül 2001 saldırıları, ABD'nin genel dış politikasında Orta Doğu’ya verdiği önemde önemli bir değişime yol açmıştır. ABD, saldırıların ardından Afganistan ve Irak'a müdahale etmiş ve bunun sonucunda ortaya çıkan politikalar imajını her zamankinden daha fazla olumsuz etkilemiştir. Terörizmle mücadele ederken, ABD aynı zamanda bölgede demokrasiyi teşvik etmek amacıyla Orta Doğu halklarıyla ilişki kurmaya çalışmıştır. Buna ek olarak, kamu diplomasisi, yeni iletişim kanallarını kullanarak bölge halkına ulaşma hedefiyle demokrasinin teşvik edilmesi için etkili bir yöntem olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Bazı teoriler bu yaklaşımı mantıklı bir seçim olarak görmektedir. Ancak 21. yüzyılın ilk yıllarında ABD'nin imajı bölge halkları arasında olumsuz olmaya devam etmiştir. Bu makale, demokrasinin teşvik edilmesinde önemli bir araç olarak kamu diplomasisinin rolünü tartışmakta ve Orta Doğu'daki Amerikan imajının neden sadece bu yaklaşımla iyileşmediğini açıklamaya çalışmaktadır. Bu amaçla, öncelikle demokrasinin teşviki kavramı tanımlanmakta ve ardından kamu diplomasisinin bu bağlamdaki potansiyel rolü analiz edilmektedir. Son olarak, 2005 yılına kadar ABD'nin kamu diplomasisi çabalarını analiz etmekte ve bu stratejilerin etkinliğini tartışmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Demokrasi Teşviki, Kamu Diplomasisi, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, Orta Doğu

Kaynakça

• Alexander, C. R. (2021). Hegemony, Morality and Power: A Gramscian Theoretical Framework for Public Diplomacy. In The Frontiers of Public Diplomacy (9-24). Routledge.
• Amr, H. (2004). The need to communicate: How to improve US public diplomacy with the Islamic world. Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/amr20040101.pdf.
• Bieler, A., and Morton, A. D. (2004), ‘A critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change: neo-Gramscian perspectives in International Relations’, Capital & Class, 28 (1), 85-113.
• Bozdağlıoğlu, Y. (2003), Turkish Foreign Policy and Turkish Identity: a Constructivist Approach, New York; London: Routledge.
• Brooks, R. (2012), ‘Democracy Promotion: Done Right, A Progressive Cause’, Democracy, (Winter 2012), 18-25. Cox, R.W. (1983), ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method’, Millennium- Journal of International Studies, 12 (2), 162-175.
• Cull, N. J. (2008). Public diplomacy: Taxonomies and histories. The annals of the American academy of political and social science, 616(1), 31-54.
• Dalacoura, K. (2005), ‘US Democracy Promotion in the Arab Middle East since 11 September 2001: a Critique’, International Affairs, 81 (5), 963-979.
• Dutta-Bergman, M.J. (2006), ‘U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Middle East: A Critical Cultural Approach’, Journal of Communication Inquiry, 30 (2), 102-124.
• El-Nawawy, M. (2006), ‘US Public diplomacy in the Arab world: The news credibility of Radio Sawa and Television Alhurra in Five Countries’, Global Media and Communication, 2 (2), 83-203.
• Esposito, J.L. and Piscatori, J.P. (1991), ‘Democratization and Islam’, Middle East Journal, 45 (3), 427-440.
• Fontana, B. (1993), Hegemony and Power: On the Relation Between Gramsci and Machiavelli, Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press.
• Fukuyama, F. and McFaul, M. (2007), ‘Should Democracy Be Promoted or Demoted?’, The Washington Quarterly, 31 (1), 23-45.
• Gallup (2009). Opinion Briefing: U.S. Image in Middle East/North Africa, Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/114007/opinion-briefing-image-middle-east-north-africa.aspx.
• Gilboa, E. (2008), ‘Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616 (1), 55-77.
• Gill, S. (1993), Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gill, S. (2003), Power and Resistance in the New World Order, 2nd Ed., New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Gill, S. (2012), Global Crises and the Crisis of Global Leadership, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Goodall, B., Trethewey, A. & McDonald, K. (2006), ‘Strategic Ambiguity, Communication, and Public Diplomacy in an Uncertain World: Principles and Practices’, Consortium for Strategic Communication.
• Gramsci, A. (1971), Selections from the Prison Notebooks, London: Lawrence and Wishart.
• Hartig, F. (2016). How China understands public diplomacy: The importance of national image for national interests. International Studies Review, 18(4), 655-680.
• Jahn, B. (2012), ‘Rethinking Democracy Promotion’, Review of International Studies, 38 (4), 685-705.
• Kennedy, L. and Lucas, S. (2005), ‘Enduring Freedom: Public Diplomacy and US Foreign Policy’, American Quarterly, 57 (2), 309-333.
• Kinsella, D. (2005), ‘No Rest for Democratic Peace’, The American Political Science Review, 99 (3), 453-457.
• Layne, C. (1994), ‘Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace’, International Security, 19 (2), 5-49.
• McFaul, M. (2004), ‘Democracy Promotion as a World Value’, Washington Quarterly, 28 (1), 147-163.
• Melissen, J. (2006), The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, Basingstoke [UK]; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Nisbet, E.C., Nisbet, M.C., Scheufele, D.A., & Shanahan, J.E. (2004), ‘Public Diplomacy, Television News, and Muslim Opinion’, The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 9 (2), 11-37.
• Nye Jr., J.S. (2004), ‘Hard Power, Soft Power, and “The War on Terrorism”’, in David Held and Mathias Koenig-Archibugi (Eds.), American Power in the 21st Century, Cambridge: Polity.
• Nye Jr., J.S. (2004), Soft Power: the Means to Success in the World Politics, New York: Public Affairs; London: Perseus Running.
• Nye Jr., J.S. (2008), ‘Public Diplomacy and Soft Power’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616 (1), 94-109.
• Ottaway, M. (2005), ‘The Problem of Credibility’ in Thomas Carothers and Martina Ottaway (eds.) Uncharted Journey: Promoting Democracy in the Middle East, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
• Owen IV, J. M. (2005), ‘Iraq and the Democratic Peace-Who Says Democracies Don’t Fight?’, Foreign Affairs, 84 (6), 122-127.
• Powel, B. T. (2009), ‘The Stability Syndrome: US and EU Democracy Promotion in Tunisia’, The Journal of North African Studies, 14 (1), 57-73.
• Robinson, W. I. (2005), ‘Gramsci and Globalisation: From Nation‐State to Transnational Hegemony’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8 (4), 559-574.
• Rosato, S. (2003), ‘The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory’, The American Political Science Review, 97 (4), 585-602.
• Ross, C. (2002), ‘Public Diplomacy Comes of Age’, The Washington Quarterly, 25 (2), 75-83.
• Rugh, W.A. (2006), American Encounters with Arabs: the "Soft Power" of U.S. Public Diplomacy in the Middle East, Westport, Conn.: Praeger Security International.
• Scott-Smith, G. and Mos, M. (2009) ‘Democracy promotion and the New Public Diplomacy’ in Inderjeet Parmar, Linda B. Miller, and Mark Ledwidge (Eds.), New Directions in US Foreign Policy, London: Routledge.
• Sharp, P. (2006), ‘Revolutionary States, Outlaw Regimes and the Techniques of Public Diplomacy’ in Jan Melissen (eds.), The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, Basingstoke [UK]; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Snow, N. (2020). Rethinking public diplomacy in the 2020s. In Routledge handbook of public diplomacy (3-12). Routledge.
• Van Ham, P. (2002), ‘Branding Territory: Inside the Wonderful Worlds of PR and IR Theory’, Millenium-Journal of International Studies, 31 (2), 249-269.
• Wendt, A. (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Zöllner, O. (2006), ‘A quest for dialogue in international broadcasting: Germany’s public diplomacy targeting Arab audiences’, Global Media and Communication, 2 (2), 160-182.