THE NEW PUBLIC DIPLOMACY: SOFT POWER IN RELATIONS 

The globalization process has deeply affected the whole world. A new international system order emerged with the globalization process. In this new order, the system's rules and active players have changed. 

So what is globalization and how does it affect our lives? If we focus on this concept first, we can better perceive the new international order. Globalization; is defined as spreading some common values ​​in economic, political, social, and cultural fields across the world by crossing local and national borders. With globalization, the problems have also become global. Thus, a problem that occurs seems risky for all countries in the world. Therefore, the risk community needs "global trust" against this uncertainty. In the globalization process, it is seen that the importance of the trust factor has increased.

Foreign policy has long been in the hands of the so-called political elite. While the effectiveness of domestic and foreign public opinion increases in foreign policy and decision-making processes with the new international system, the mediation of the political sphere and the spread of the culture of transparency brought about by democratization, thanks to the new mass and personal communication systems, is an interaction involving many actors by removing international relations from being a field of activity defined by government relations, has been made to the field.[1] 

The changes in the national and international arena also led to significant changes in the concept of diplomacy, which is the most important element of foreign policy. While classical diplomacy refers to the negotiations between states and their bureaucrats, modern diplomacy has begun to be defined as the management of relations between states and other actors. Thus, new types of multi-actor diplomacy began to emerge: public diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, global diplomacy, and media diplomacy. These constitute most of today's diplomacy. With the changing system; citizen diplomacy, which includes citizen interactions, cultural diplomacy expressing cultural relations, economic diplomacy expressing economic interactions, and humanitarian diplomacy describing humanitarian activities, started to be mentioned as civil diplomats of countries. The official diplomats of the countries either adapted to this situation or had to cooperate with the actors in these fields. At first, official relations, which were carried out only around political actors and behind closed doors, included non-governmental organizations, profit-making organizations, interest groups, and citizens with the new system. This situation has become important for countries and their governments to carry out their activities in this new field. Images and perceptions about countries and nations mostly started to be shaped by these relationships.

Although the concept of public diplomacy has emerged since the 1960s, it became popular after the attack on the USA on September 11, 2001. The terrorist attacks of September 11 and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq following these attacks have dramatically changed the balance of power and international security discourse that started to be established after the Cold War. The policies implemented by the American Government after 9/11 point to the need for soft power as well as the use of hard power in the 21st- century security agenda. This has become a concern of these large-scale changes in the international security agenda for the civilian population, as well as governments in both developed and developing countries. ( In the American National Security Strategy, in addition to conventional and nuclear threats, weapons of mass destruction and terrorist organizations, rogue states, and unsuccessful states using these weapons have been identified as primary threats. Thus, the security agenda of the USA has become closely linked with the security of the Greater Middle East and Asia.) 

After the end of the bipolar world order with the Cold War, its actors are faced with a new international system whose rules and vision are very different from the old one. The functioning of this new international system neither resembles the bipolar world nor has anything to do with the unipolar world. Multi-polar "New International System"; ıt is closely related to communication, informatics, thinking, strategy and technology. The concept of "hard power" (military and economic powers), which is mostly used by countries in the Cold War period and unipolar world order, is replaced by the concept of "soft power" (value, culture, and people-oriented) in the new international system. In the classical international relations approach, security is defined as the protection of the sovereignty and independence of a state and the greater the economic, technological, and military power of a state, the more secure it is accepted. Faced with a constant security dilemma, states have tried to develop rational strategies that can bring their interests and security to the forefront. The existence of threats and threat perceptions play an important role in the development of security and defense strategies. Countries that manage to use their soft power effectively can gain much more than they achieve by using hard power; it can also perpetuate long-term cooperation. The best example of this will be the European Union. Soft power, which is generally identified with the foreign and security policies of the European Union, includes methods of persuading the other without using force. A country's ability to use soft power is linked to that country's culture, values ​​and policies. Cleverly planned power strategies are those that have been able to blend hard power with soft power. If we go back to the situation in the Cold War era; it has been shown as an important way to win the minds and hearts of people in an era when the dual power structure and nuclear weapons are forcing and threatening the people of the world to be neutral. During this period, many states, especially the great powers, continued public diplomacy campaigns to gain the support of foreign publics to achieve their international goals.[2] Thus, public diplomacy has ceased to be a series of activities focused on the state and the government and has become a field where the activities of non-governmental organizations, non-governmental institutions, cultural organizations, universities, diasporas, pressure groups, lobbies, private companies, media and communication organizations, and citizens are defined.

The characteristics of public diplomacy in this new period, which is also defined as the new public diplomacy, are listed as follows:

Adopting approaches for greater cooperation in international relations, contributing to a common understanding between nations, international actors, and foreign publics, helping to establish and maintain relations, establishing links to facilitate institutional and individual relations in the public and private sectors, Inclusion of foreign publics in policy-making processes, paying attention to the principles of dialogue and partnership, adopting two-way communication and interaction, prioritizing relations between individuals rather than mass communication techniques, focusing on proactive and long-term relationships.[3]

Three different public diplomacy models have been developed in the approach put forward by Gilboa. In the first period, which was described as the "Cold War Model", public diplomacy activities were applied by governments in opposition relations to obtain long-lasting results for foreign communities. The second model, the "non-state, transnational" period, involves the activities of groups, institutions, non-governmental organizations, and individuals outside of national borders. In the third model, referred to as the 'Internal Public Relations Model', governments try to ensure the legitimacy of their policies by working with public relations companies and lobbies.

REFERENCES

Cowan, G., Arsenault, A. (2008). “Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy”. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2011). U.S. Publıc Diplomacy In a Post-9/11 World: From Messagıng to Mutualıty. Figueroa Press.

Gilboa, E. (2008). “Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 616. March. (55-77).

Gouveia, P. F., Plumridg, H. (2005). European Infopolitik: Developing EU Public Diplomacy Strategy. The UK.

Beck, Ulrick (1992), The Risk Society, Sage, London

[1] Signitzer and Wamser, 2006: 435

[2] Gilboa, 2008: 55

[3] Fitzpatrick vd., 2013:8