The Mouse-opoly in China: economic or diplomatic relationship?

Walt Disney Corporation is one of the most influential and powerful media conglomerate in the entire globe and together with Time Warner, Comcast , National Amusement, News Corp and Sony they have become the top six media companies (also known as the “Big 6”) that dominate the entire entertainment industry [1].  

In 2005, Bob Iger became the new CEO of the company and since then his main objective has been that of expanding even more the power and influence of the company, by purchasing the ownership of Lucasfilm and Marvel.
The company’s monopoly over the entertainment industry can be explained by the possession of a large number of TV Networks, Cable Channels such as Disney Channel, Abc Family, Soapnet, also Local Tv Stations, International TV Broadcasts, over 69 local radios, Music companies such as Buena Vista Music Group, and also the ownership of magazine groups , books publishers, theatrical productions, retail and Theme Parks and Resorts such as the many Disneylands spread around the world.

Therefore, its presence is undoubtedly everywhere, in every aspect of our lives, from what we read to what we watch on the Television or to what we buy [2].
However, its influence is not merely limited to the US but contrarily it has spread and achieved phenomenal popularity in other many parts of the world.
One of its most beneficial and powerful relations is with China, which represents for the US a highly profitable overseas market.
The origins of their relations date back to the 1930s, during World War Two, when two major Disney films such as Snow White and Seven Dwarfs, together with Pinocchio were released in Hong Kong and Shanghai exerting a strong positive influence especially on Chinese filmmakers.
However, in 1949 following the establishment of the People’s Republic of China ,the company’s involvement in the country was banned, forcing Disney to withdraw its position from the Chinese market, which marked the beginning of the Cold War period[3].
Only in 1986, the company was given permission to re-enter the market again, with a regular television broadcast, showing short comics that were strictly controlled and supervised by the China Central Television (CCTV)[4].
It was by this time, that cartoon figures such as Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck appeared on the Chinese national TV for the first time, reaching a massive popularity among the public and becoming one of the most watched Tv programmes by Chinese families[5].

Chinese Donal Duck comic book.

Since this moment onwards, the relationship has grown exponentially in terms of influence and meaning for the Chinese population.
As Wing Chao, a former Disney executive, stated “Disney has worked to build a strong affinity with Chinese families and audiences through the core values of quality, optimism, innovation, and storytelling in all of its creative content”[6].
Therefore, Disney’s role of merely having control over certain TV programmes has evolved significantly over the years, reaching a high level of influence from films to Disney toys and also introducing to the country the well known Disney Resorts[7].
In fact, one of the latest big achievements of the company in China has been the outstanding and gigantic $5.5 billion Shanghai Disney Resort which opened to the public in June 2016.

Shanghai Disney Resort

The opening of the Resort, if all goes as planned, will have an incredibly positive impact on the company’s success and influence in China, as the Shanghai Resort will generate a profitable environment for consumerism in China ranging from Disney books, clothes, toys, movies to all sorts of affiliated merchandise.
CEO Iger, has defined the Shanghai Park as the “greatest opportunity the company has had since Walt Disney himself bought land in Central Florida”[8].
But besides its economic value and US influence in China, many politicians have seen this moment as an opportunity to increase diplomatic relations and as Barack Obama stated in his letter which was read out at the ceremony, the Resort also “captures the promise of the US-Chinese bilateral relationship”[9].

Disney Chairman Bob Iger meets Chinese President XI Jinping ahead of Shanghai Theme Park Opening. 

Meaning that the relationship between China and The Walt Disney Corporation does not represent solely a trade relation based on economical interests but also a diplomatic one, because promoting cultural bonds and openness will inevitably lead to strengthen the diplomatic relations and cooperation between the two historically and culturally different countries such as China and US[10].

 

REFERENCES:

[1]WebpageFX. (2017). The 6 Companies That Own (almost) All Media [Infographic] | WebpageFX. [online] Available at: https://www.webpagefx.com/data/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media/ [Accessed 28 Nov. 2017].

[2]Subsol.c3.hu. (2017). Free Press, Media Monopoly Made Simple. [online] Available at: http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors3/freepresstext.html [Accessed 28 Nov. 2017].

[3]Yu, H., (2015). From Kundun to Mulan: A Political Economic Case Study of Disney and China. ASIANetwork Exchange: A Journal for Asian Studies in the Liberal Arts. 22(1), pp.12–22. DOI: http://doi.org/10.16995/ane.100

[4]Fung, A. (2013). Asian popular culture. 1st ed. New York: Routledge, p.59.

[5]Yu, H., (2015). From Kundun to Mulan: A Political Economic Case Study of Disney and China. ASIANetwork Exchange: A Journal for Asian Studies in the Liberal Arts. 22(1), pp.12–22. DOI: http://doi.org/10.16995/ane.100

[6]Poblete, J. (2016). China’s relationship with The Walt Disney Company is a diplomatic one just as much it is a business one. [online] DisneyExaminer. Available at: http://disneyexaminer.com/2016/04/26/china-relationship-with-the-walt-disney-company-is-a-diplomatic-one-just-as-much-it-is-a-business-one-c-100-los-angeles-conference-recap/ [Accessed 28 Nov. 2017].

[7]Ibid.

[8]Barnes, D. (2016). How China Won the Keys to Disney’s Magic Kingdom. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/business/international/china-disney.html [Accessed 28 Nov. 2017].

[9]Clover, C. (2016). When Walt went to China. [online] Financial Times. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/f87b5de6-3895-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7 [Accessed 28 Nov. 2017].

[10]Poblete, J. (2016). China’s relationship with The Walt Disney Company is a diplomatic one just as much it is a business one. [online] DisneyExaminer. Available at: http://disneyexaminer.com/2016/04/26/china-relationship-with-the-walt-disney-company-is-a-diplomatic-one-just-as-much-it-is-a-business-one-c-100-los-angeles-conference-recap/ [Accessed 28 Nov. 2017].

 

Public Diplomacy and Negotiations

For the most part, when parties enter into a negotiation it can go one of either three ways. The first is what is known as a positive-sum game. That is to say, that both parties stand to gain something from the negotiation. The gains don’t necessarily have to be divided equally between both sides, as the key here is that they both stand to gain. Alternatively, a negotiation can also be known as what is termed a zero-sum game. Which is to say, one party stands to gain something/s at the expense of the other. Finally, deadlock could hit the negotiation and the parties decide to walk away from it. With nothing agreed nobody gains anything, and the ripeness of the present opportunity decays.

The parties will likely have some idea of which way future occurrences may take them, after all, why wouldn’t they enter into it if they didn’t? But the outcome is unknown. So, to ensure that they have the best chances of influencing events in a positive manner, it becomes necessary to leverage any advantages for future gain. Especially when the negotiation is mainly a zero-sum game. The modern world is replete with examples of public diplomacy being used for this task, as when it is deployed cleverly, it allows one party to essentially “go over the head” of the other and speak directly to their stakeholders. The below example will prove instructive of how a public diplomacy strategy can be employed to sway negotiating outcomes.

It is no secret that in contemporary societies, and especially in democracies, that mobilising public opinion is a powerful method of influencing government policy, because as mentioned before, it offers a powerful way to communicate directly with some of the stakeholders that most affect government policy. That is why, in a time of Brexit negotiations, it is no surprise to see the European Parliament pursuing a program of “digital agenda setting” in the United Kingdom via Twitter. It is not directly tied into the negotiations, although, it does have a vote on any final deal. This makes it the perfect actor to pursue such a strategy because, as it is composed of elected members who may act independently, it offers the European Union plausible deniability. They can simply say that the parliament uses its directorates to pursue its own agenda, as it undoubtedly does to some extent.

The European Union endeavours towards a policy of neutrality in its public relations, and true to form, a cursory glance at one of the direct negotiators pages holds true to this. However, a look at the Parliament’s page tells another story. Whilst it does make some attempt to present posts in a neutral fashion, the volume and content of their postings is such that it belies itself as an attempt at influencing the outcome of negotiations through the manipulation of public opinion. Bjola and Holmes point out that as one of the primary aims of public diplomacy “is to advance foreign policy goals by influencing public opinion in the host country, is it then important to understand what kind of information is being used to inform and influence the public (agenda-setting)?” (Bjola & Holmes, 2015. P.75). To get an idea of this, just consider some of the following posts. Such as Brexit and agriculture, or Brexit and science research or teaching Brexit. One could say these are merely informative events, which they are, but they also serve to generate awareness of issues effecting important voting constituencies that will have a large impact on the United Kingdom post-Brexit. Such a tactic is likely to have its payoffs, as scientists are increasingly focal about their priorities and there’s no shortage of stories about the negative effects from Brexit facing farmers. The latter being a group that there is evidence to suggest may have voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. Although, this is disputed. In the longer term, targeting teachers could help to cement the positive image of the Union amongst Britain’s youth.

Furthermore, consider that the volume of Brexit related posts in November makes up 71% of the proportion of overall posts at the time of writing (70/98 on 19^th), and that the EP in the UK is in no hurry to let us forget that any Brexit deal needs European Parliamentary approval. Reminding us already this month of this fact no less than on two separate occasions. Whilst this short blog is no authoritative study, it certainly seems apparent after just a few examples that the Parliament is attempting to gain leverage over the Brexit negotiations.

---

Bjola, C. and Holmes, M. (2015). Digital diplomacy. 1st ed. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

We Are Not Amused:Russia Today’s Use Of Humour To Address Russian Hacking Allegations

At the start of September 2017 commuters on London’s Underground were in for a rather interesting new advertising campaign.The company who had commissioned these adverts was the Russian state backed English news channel  Russia Today (RT).The large posters plastered across walls of the busy London Underground system read ‘Come and see who we’re hacking today’ and ‘The CIA calls us propaganda,come and see what we call the CIA‘ and the slightly more dramatic  ‘Missed the train? Lost the Vote? BLAME IT ON US!‘. In another of their adverts they even describe themselves as a ‘Propaganda Bullhorn‘ [1]in direct reference to what former US Foreign Secretary John Kerry referred to them as in 2014; in relation to channels ‘biased’ reporting in Ukraine during the Russian military occupation of Crimea.

RT,which broadcasts in the UK in English,  claims to provide news that has an ‘edge’  in comparison to other networks.Its website adds that it seek to provide  viewers the opportunity to ‘question more’.Founded in 2005 the media network defines its role as to;

 ‘cover stories overlooked by the mainstream media, provide alternative perspectives on current affairs, and acquaint international audiences with a Russian viewpoint on major global events’  [2]

As Well as it’s round the clock news coverage,the network  includes seven TV channels in addition.[3] This content is broadcasted in English,Spanish and Arabic to 600 million viewers and claims to provide a ‘Russian perspective to global events‘ and those which it feels are not covered by mainstream media.Its website declares its mission as to encourage people to ‘Question More‘.It has offices in London and Washington and has made no secret about its motivations to offer an alternative narrative and perspective to what its sees as the dominant western media.It is this perspective that the state backed channel wants its viewers to question.Putin has directly stated that it would be unusual for others to expect that the channel not tow the official line of the government [4] in an interview with the channel.

Direct government investment into RT is said to have increased as it invests to upgrade technology and advance reach becoming savvier and more competitive with what it sees as monopoly of decades long Western propaganda as the agenda setter and the default narrative of international news.Seen as mouthpiece of the Russian government; which has faced accusations of interfering in large scale leaks and hacks of the private data systems of states such as the Georgia,US and Britain as well as many others; it too has received some of the criticism.Largely in part because it has given a platform for the state to vehemently deny all the allegations even at times when evidence has been found.Whilst Putin has opted for staunch but relaxed denials the channel has begun to use a more mocking,derisory tone to make the point.In 2017,a year after the CIA claimed that it had evidence of Russian meddling in the 2016 US election [5]. it released a video mocking the accusation that the Russian state was complicit.

 

 

In the same year as the broadcasts the channels use of satire to address the topic of hacking was rolled out into Washington D.C  metro system[6] and London’s TFL network.It marked a new approach by the station to begin to use humour to deflect from the allegations with many even using the term ‘trolling’ [7].However; in doing so it furthers the suggestion that it was acting as the mouthpiece of the Russian government, as RT had not been specifically accused of hacking.

 

.

 

The idea to place the ‘advert’ on the underground would undoubtedly have some degree of commercial motivation with 1.37 billion passengers using the underground annually , advertisers know the footfall and potential time spent eye level with posters will give their campaigns maximum exposure.One agency which sells advertising space on the London Underground describes it as an ‘illustrious advertising environment’ which provides a ‘premium’ branding opportunity.

As well as bemused commuters taking pictures and commenting on the adverts,it did not take long for the British Press to respond with a tone of incredulity. Buzzfeed described it as ‘trolling‘ and saw the adverts as a way to ‘embrace the claims of hacking‘ with the spectator taking a more condemnatory tone previously describing the channel  as ‘Putin’s Weapon of Mass deception‘.On the 27th November 2017 the Evening Standard reported that ‘City Hall Tories are calling on Sadiq Khan to block the highly political adverts’.It reported that London Assembly members felt that TFL was being used to promote Russian propaganda.Assembly member Gareth Bacon was quoted as saying “These adverts breach Tfl advertising rules and are highly political in nature,emanating from a foreign power that is often hostile to the UK and its allies.Allowing this organisation to continue advertising on our tube network and elsewhere would be a huge mistake.It must stop now”.At the point of writing there has been no official response from the Mayor’s Office.

Tfl have denied any of its rules have been breached although its own policy regulations forbid any publication or material relating to any political party or political cause  in 2.3(n) of its official Policy.It is likely that the reference to pre-election periods means that this has an undue focus on national political causes and not international ones.

Under the heading ‘Principles’ It’s policy paper also states that its core values as a public body are  ‘transparency, accountability and responsibility’ with the expectation that advertisers ‘share our values’.The policy described the organisations aspiration to carry adverts which  are ‘responsible, respectful and sensitive to time, location and events.’It can be argued that as the FBI has concluded that there was some degree of Russian interference into the 2016 elections and during an ongoing investigation to assess the extent of the Kremlin’s role, that there is a degree of insensitivity to the ‘time’ and ‘events’ of this advertisement campaign.The organization adds that it aspires to carry adverts which are not ‘purposefully controversial’.

Audacious and brash

Shortly after the advert appeared it faced criticism from both the British media and politicians as being provocative and audacious.The most prominent politicians to speak out included Labour Peer, Lord Adonis; who tweeted his condemnation of TFL for allowing, what he described as ‘propaganda‘ to be displayed on the London Underground. In a later tweet the peer vowed to get the adverts taken down.

It didnt take long for RT to respond with a tweet describing the Peer as ‘triggered‘ suggesting he was over sensitive and exaggerating over what it saw as a fun piece of marketing.

 

In a similar vein, Labour’s Shadow Culture Secretary Tom Watson took his condemnation a step further by calling on broadcast regulator OFCOM to investigate the channel.Citing recent ‘cyberattacks’ in reference to allegations of meddling in US elections through the dissemination of ‘fake news’ stories and possible hacking into Democratic National Committee’s email,Watson said that the adverts had cause ‘caused significant alarm‘ to the public in a letter to the OFCOM chief Sarah White and described the channel as ‘Putin’s Mouthpiece‘.In response to the furore tfl  have responded by insisting that the advert ‘complies with our policy’.

The adverts were also shown in America in the beginning of October but by the 14th of October were taken down.The reason RT had withdrawn the adverts was due to the US government demanding that the channel register as a foreign agent.It had officially been requested to do so as far back as August but it is possible that the advertisement campaign gave the government more impetus.This had happened in the same month that the American based social media company Twitter banned the company from advertising on its platform due to its use of the platform as one of the tools of its ‘interference’ and misinformation campaign in the 2016 US elections ‘on behalf of the Russian government‘

To some British politicians the channels use of humour to address the serious nature of accusation of hacking could be interpreted as derision directed at western leaders ; directly attributable to the Kremlin. That notion the Channel was utilising its platform to both trivialize and deny the allegation of meddling into the US elections made it more dangerous.

It is considered by some as the Russian government’s attempt to brazenly showcase the Kremlin’s  new found appreciation of Russian media as a propaganda tool.To do more of  what it has been accused of by the CIA and British Government,its capability on the new front line of warfare by media but  in a more direct and transparent way.Deploying the use of media to influence western audiences and defend its image.

The advertisement campaign was seen as a possible attempt to use the controversy surrounding the 2016 election to commercialise on its new found status as powerful influencer of western public opinion.The backlash from both Labour and Tory politicians and British newspapers touch on a fear of the encroaching presence of what they see as Russian propaganda through misinformation as a real threat to democracy.The use of Tfl was a convenient and mule for the message connecting them directly to the British public.The Russian government have emphatically denied interfering in the US elections and have claimed that they are being used as a scapegoat with Putin describing it as a ‘political witch hunt’ even though he would go on to suggest that it was possible  “patriotic” Russian hackers had actively sought to influence the outcome.As the first sign of attributing hacking claims to his country he said “If they are patriotic, they contribute in a way they think is right, to fight against those who say bad things about Russia,”.It is possible this is how Putin and the Kremlin view RT; that it acts to defends the state from ‘bad things’ which are being said about it.This campaign can be seen as an attempt to patriotically do just that using a witty marketing campaign and Tfl do so.

India’s giant step into modern digital diplomacy.

We are living in a period of significant technological advances, which are rapidly shaping how our society works and interacts. Digital technology has altered the way social relations are conducted and also how states manage governance internally. The use of such technologies, as well as the rise of social medias, have drastically impacted diplomatic practices, in terms of how they communicate with the public, release information and interact with diplomats.[1] As a result of this wide spread of technological advances, a new form of diplomacy has emerged, that has taken the name of digital diplomacy which is a form of public diplomacy that involves the implementation of digital technologies and social media, such as Facebook, Twitter and others by states or heads of state as well as High Representatives to communicate with foreign publics.[2]

Therefore, foreign ministries and diplomats in order to keep up with the world’s new dynamics and advances are compelled to adapt to an ever-growing digital society.           In recent years Indian diplomacy has taken a revolutionary step especially the Indian Foreign Office (MEA), into what we now call digital diplomacy, which is currently spreading more than ever.A significant example is the launch of a revolutionary App called ‘MEAIndia’ under the initiative of the Indian Foreign Ministry Office. The App can be downloaded for free on both Android and Apple app stores, and constitutes a virtual platform providing help and assistance on diplomatic related issues. [3]

The wide range of services offered by the App includes:

• Providing consular assistance to passport and visa queries.
• Interacting with your Minister through the App at anytime and everywhere
• Following your Prime Minister’s visits abroad.
• Being notified on India’s foreign relations updates and latest news.
• Watching and downloading documentaries on India.
• And also sharing your thoughts and suggestions to contribute to the development of the App. [4]

 

Syed Akbaruddin, an Indian Foreign Service officer has considered the App as representing “a giant leap of faith in the digital world”.[5] Besides the launch of the App, India’s digital diplomacy has become very popular as per the use of other virtual platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Flickr.

The YouTube channel MEAIndia for example has reached half million views whilst the Indian Diplomacy channel has reached the extraordinary number of 5 million views.[6]

Thus, MEA’s wide social media participation has the objective to strengthen and broaden the connection with the young generation, increasing the public interest and ultimately spreading its digital presence to the international arena.[7] Furthermore, besides social media, digital diplomacy and the use of technologies exercise significant power and influence on important diplomatic levels such as policy initiatives, negotiations and also crisis management decisions.An example of this, is MEA’s social media network presence and importance in the crisis management of Syria and Libya, in which social media represented a successful and powerful method to communicate with the nationals living in these countries and coordinate effective evacuation procedures form the two countries.[8]

To conclude, India has made a significant change in its diplomatic practices, from being, as the Indian foreign minister Ranjan Mathai describes, remarkably “secretive, and of communicating discreetly and quietly with the interlocutors in a complete detached manner” into a new open , transparent diplomacy making its best effort to engage with the public and to spread its presence globally.[9] In 2016, India has been ranked among the top ten countries to in the performance of digital diplomacy[10], and Viksas Swarup spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs, stated that “India and Mexico are the only two countries from the developing world in this list” which represents a great result[11].

 

References:

[1] Bjola, C. and Holmes, M. (2017). Digital Diplomacy : Theory and Practice. 1st ed. Routledge.

[2] Exploring Digital Diplomacy. (2017). What is Digital Diplomacy?. [online] Available at: https://digdipblog.com/countries-on-twitter-and-facebook/ [Accessed 9 Nov. 2017].

[3] Chand, M. (2017). Diplomacy Thinking Smart: A giant digital leap for India’s foreign office. [online] India Writes. Available at: http://www.indiawrites.org/thinking-smart-indias-foreign-office-giant-digital-leap/ [Accessed 9 Nov. 2017].

[4] Mea.gov.in. (2017). MEA | MEA goes Mobile. [online] Available at: http://mea.gov.in/mea-mobile-app.htm [Accessed 9 Nov. 2017].

[5] The Financial Express. (2017). MEA logs into e-diplomacy. [online] Available at: http://www.financialexpress.com/archive/mea-logs-into-e-diplomacy/1295764/ [Accessed 9 Nov. 2017].

[6] Indian Diplomacy At Work. #digitaldiplomacy. (2017). [PDF] indianembassydublin.in. Available at: http://www.indianembassydublin.in/docs/Digital%20Diplomacy.pdf [Accessed 9 Nov. 2017].

[7] Chand, M. (2017). Diplomacy Thinking Smart: A giant digital leap for India’s foreign office. [online] India Writes. Available at: http://www.indiawrites.org/thinking-smart-indias-foreign-office-giant-digital-leap/ [Accessed 9 Nov. 2017].

[8] Kurbalija, J. (2017). 25 Points for Digital Diplomacy. [online] DiploFoundation. Available at: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/25-points-digital-diplomacy [Accessed 9 Nov. 2017].

[9]DNA-Daily News & Analysis. (2017). Now, use an app to apply for passport | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis. [online] Available at: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-now-use-an-app-to-apply-for-passport-1867300 [Accessed 9 Nov. 2017].

[10] #DDR16 Digital Diplomacy Review 2016. (2017). RANKING & RATING. [online] Available at: http://digital.diplomacy.live/ranking-and-rating/ [Accessed 10 Nov. 2017].

[11] Service, I. (2017). India Among Top 10 Countries in Digital Diplomacy: Report. [online] NDTV Gadgets360.com. Available at: https://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/india-among-top-10-countries-in-digital-diplomacy-report-823007 [Accessed 10 Nov. 2017].

 

North Korea, Nuclear pursuits and Public Diplomacy

There has been a few moments that change the course of history nuclear weapons are one of them. The United States dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima 6^th August 1945 killing in total 140,000. The second bomb dropped by the United States on Nagasaki 9^th August killing 75,000. Although there is some conjecture on the count of lives lost one fact is certain nuclear weapons are devastating, and present a real threat to international stability. Since 1945 mass nuclear proliferation was underway and according to ‘Arms Control Association‘ by 2017 it is estimated there is 15,000 nuclear warheads. However in equal measure efforts of Nuclear-Nonproliferation took center stage. The negotiated ‘Nonproliferation-Treaty‘   in 1968 and the ‘Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty‘ (CNTB) in 1996 curved nuclear states proliferation. However there are states that are still seeking nuclear capabilities such as Iran and North Korea who have yet to sign the CNTB.

North Korea as an Authoritarian regime and its implicit hate of America underpins the tense relations between the two states. The reality of the tensions are further exasperated through incoherent policy on dealing with the North Korean nuclear threat. With Pyongyang destabilising’ test-after-test of Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles and Nuclear weapons. The head of the U.S. military’s pacific command informed reporters that ‘diplomacy was key’ and U.S. disarmament ambassador Robert Wood informed ‘path to dialogue still remains open’.

In contrary President Donald Trump installed anti-missile defenses in South Korea reflecting a cold war rhetoric of brinkmanship, according to the cambridge dictionary ‘the activity, especially in politics, of trying to get what you want by saying that if you do not get it, you will do something dangerous’ In other periods within the Trump administration referring to Kim-Jong-Un as a ‘Little Rocket Man’ blurs what approach the U.S. is taking with North Korea. Diplomacy through the geyser of intermittent Hard Power is destabilizing and teetering on nuclear war, or as some analysts say WWIII. Nuclear weapons have since 1945, been a deterrent and a policy of diplomacy adopted for nonproliferation through treaties and multilateral discussions. However it is well documented that North Korea does not take the United Nations seriously and in equal measure America. As it stands a competing policy of brinkmanship from Trump and North Korea is destabilising.

Kim Jong Un of North Korea, who is obviously a madman who doesn't mind starving or killing his people, will be tested like never before!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 22, 2017

Public diplomacy has taken center stage in the 21^st century and can be defined as the people’s diplomacy with the dissemination of propaganda as a form of coercion of foreign publics. Operating in a digital-global form of communication and propagation of ideas and thoughts.  Twitter the medium enabling states to inform publics of its activities and for publics to communicate its thoughts in hope of approaching equilibrium with the state or NSA. Therefore, in essence public diplomacy is a form of soft power where multi level communications can take place. Twitter is not the only media platform used to propagate ideas and thoughts, although it is a prominent site for #NorthKorea discussion. Indeed peoples-to-people share their interpretation of unfolding political events. As one example below epitomises a humorous account of a terrifying narrative.

Giving power to a wrong person #America #NorthKorea pic.twitter.com/tCKODs4kpA

— Harsh Goenka (@hvgoenka) October 20, 2017

In-fact one can observe clear parallels from state policy to propagandist intent. It’s no surprise North Koreas’ public diplomacy is non-existent as its people are ‘not free’ according to the Freedom House report; all domestic media outlets run by the state and fixed to state channels. In addition there is no academic freedom, meaning thinking freely is prohibited. Therefore public diplomacy cannot operate meaning the North Korean peoples’ ‘Arab Spring’ the hope of revolution is unlikely. However Pyongyang still pushes its propaganda nevertheless.

North Korea propaganda of a great nation Airrang festival 

Fortunately for North Korea it has an ally of sorts with Russia. Some might observe these relations based on an inter-dependence between Pyongyang and Moscow. Others may concede that enemy of my enemy is my friend. Whatever the case it is clear that RT a Moscow led media outlet is propagating North Koreas’ position. #RT_America hosts bias account of the North Korean-South Korean divide, through documentaries such as ‘the imposed divide’ stigmatizing America. This is not a surprise of course as Russia and America have strained relations at best, since arguably the Syrian Crisis. Therefore undermining America’s position on North Korea on behalf of North Korea is following the same policy in handling America, Russia always has.

NEW @RT_America documentary by @anyaparampil!

You won't want to miss KOREA: The Imposed Divide, LIVE on https://t.co/Z4gJqqvOuJ at 5pm ET! pic.twitter.com/lObQ5534su

— RT America (@RT_America) October 20, 2017

Therefore one has to forward that if you can’t operate public diplomacy effectively you risk allowing oppositions or allies to propagate your position for you. Discussions are happening across mass media platforms, cultural exchanges and active listening takes place. Hard power has its limitations in the 21^st century’ which thrives on public-diplomacy and propagating ones position on political events or otherwise. And a policy of brinkmanship is cold-war rhetoric that is reckless and destabilising.  Whilst the world talks of North Korean Propaganda and Two reckless leaders, other commentators indulge in the dissemination of public diplomacy – propagating state-interest.

Hello and Welcome

Welcome to this group blog on which students will post their reflections on contemporary public diplomacy and global communication. Please leave them some comments on their work – they would be delighted to receive your feedback on their thoughts on this subject.

Steven Curtis