File
|
Public Diplomacy for Restoring International Credibility |
| December 23, 2024
|
-
Intaek HanVisiting Research Fellow, The Sejong Institute | ihan@sejong.org
-
Sudden political uncertainty has caused a shock to the Korean economy. Many foreign investors have pulled out of the South Korean market, and in Thailand, there was an incident where the exchange of Korean won was refused. Fortunately, the political situation is gradually stabilizing because the democratic and constitutional procedures have functioned without bloodshed. However, South Korea’s image abroad has not recovered immediately, and the country's international credibility is still below its previous level. Despite economic and financial efforts, the sell-off by foreign investors continue, and the decline of the Korean won persists.
Political uncertainty also has a significant impact on our diplomacy. The visit of the Swedish Prime Minister to South Korea has been postponed, and the Japanese Prime Minister's planned visit has been canceled. It seems that normal diplomatic exchanges will be impossible for the time being. Intergovernmental diplomacy has also been disrupted, as evidenced by the postponement of the 4th ROK-U.S. Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG) meeting. In some countries, South Korea was temporarily designated as a "travel advisory" destination. -
Currently, since traditional diplomacy including state-to-state diplomacy and governmental exchanges are facing difficulties, there is a need to actively utilize public diplomacy. ublic diplomacy refers to diplomacy aimed at enhancing understanding and trust in South Korea among foreign populations. The "foreign populations" in this context encompass not only individuals but also market actors, media, civil society organizations, and other non-governmental entities. While the typical targets of public diplomacy might be scholars, research institutes, and media organizations, foreign investors, economic analysts, and credit rating agencies are also important non-governmental actors and, when necessary, should naturally be included as targets of public diplomacy.
Although public diplomacy cannot fully replace traditional diplomacy, it can help fill some of the gaps left by the lack of traditional diplomatic channels. Since investor confidence in South Korea is falling along with a decrease in international tourists, public diplomacy is more necessary than ever. With global media currently focusing on South Korea, this could, ironically, be an ideal time to practice public diplomacy.
Up until now, the government has been conducting public diplomacy under the framework of the Second Basic Plan for Public Diplomacy (2023-2027), with the vision of establishing South Korea as a "global pivotal state contributing to world freedom, peace, and prosperity." However, amidst political uncertainty, there needs to be a discussion on whether our public diplomacy can continue to pursue this vision and whether it should do so.
South Korea has overcome poverty and dictatorship in a short period and, more recently, has even pursued membership in the G7, entering the ranks of advanced countries. Our culture and arts have also become global phenomena. Thanks to this developmental experience and soft power, South Korea’s national image and status have been elevated, and it continues to pursue the vision of becoming a global power.
However, the sudden political uncertainty has threatened the national image that has been carefully built over time. A country once admired globally for its stable democracy has, overnight, been perceived as politically unstable. Despite little changes in the economy itself, the country's international credibility has deteriorated.
In this context, pursuing the vision of a "global pivotal state contributing to world freedom, peace, and prosperity" through public diplomacy is not an easy task. Rather, there is a need for a shift in mindset to engage in public diplomacy to restore the damaged national image and rebuild South Korea’s status. In fact, enhancing national image and status is the very purpose of public diplomacy itself. -
South Korea is not the only country to have experienced an image crisis. Historically, many organizations have gone through crises and suffered damage to their image. Those organizations that managed the crisis appropriately and restored their image survived, while those that failed to handle the crisis and restore their image were eliminated. It is from these experiences that the academic field of "crisis communication" was born. Within crisis communication research, there are various theories and perspectives, but the common thread is that communication strategies play a key role in crisis management.
In crisis communication research, crisis is defined as an event that occurs unexpectedly and presents a significant threat that can lead to negative consequences if not handled appropriately. Crisis communication strategies are defined as the communication actions taken to minimize the losses caused by the crisis and restore the organization’s image. According to this definition, South Korea’s current situation qualifies as a crisis, and public diplomacy aimed at image restoration can be seen as a crisis communication strategy. Therefore, it is meaningful to explore the insights provided by crisis communication research.
Although there are various theories and perspectives within crisis communication research, and given space limitations, it is not possible to cover all the implications that crisis communication research may have for South Korea’s public diplomacy. In this paper, we will present a few key insights as examples..
When to Utilize Crisis Communication
It is essential to engage in crisis communication as early as possible, preferably from the onset of the crisis. This is because people's perceptions are formed in the early stages. As seen in the early criticism of China's passive response to the initial outbreak of COVID-19, "closed communication" strategies such as concealment or inaction deepen mistrust. On the other hand, after the crisis has passed, silence or inaction may actually be preferable, as crisis communication at this stage could revive memories of a crisis that has already been forgotten..
Looking at the implications for our situation, it is necessary to provide timely and accurate information about the ongoing political uncertainty to prevent the deterioration of South Korea’s international credibility. If international credibility worsens, it could lead to further capital outflows and a decline in the value of the Korean won, creating a self-fulfilling vicious cycle of worsening credibility. To prevent this, prompt action is required. If there is a lack of information in the market, that gap could be filled with inaccurate speculation or distorted information. Therefore, even bad news should be shared swiftly and transparently to dispel unfounded anxiety and build trust. .
Types of Image Repair Strategies.
The strategies for image repair are typically categorized into the following types: denial, evasion of responsibility, reduction of the perceived offensiveness of the event, corrective action, and mortification. These strategies provide different approaches for managing and improving public perception following a crisis or negative event..
In applying these strategies to the current situation, extreme examples might include: denying the existence of political uncertainty altogether (simple denial), acknowledging the uncertainty but asserting that the intentions behind it were positive (good intentions), highlighting South Korea's past successes in overcoming political instability and emphasizing the country's current efforts to stabilize the situation peacefully and constitutionally (bolstering), downplaying the economic impact of political uncertainty (minimization), pledging corrective actions to prevent future instances of political instability (corrective action), and openly acknowledging the uncertainty while seeking public understanding and support (mortification). These strategies can be employed individually or in combination to manage the situation.
Benoit suggests that mortification, bolstering, and corrective action are the most effective crisis communication strategies. Applying these strategies to our current situation, it would be beneficial to openly acknowledge the existence of political uncertainty (mortification), emphasize South Korea’s stability as a democracy that has successfully navigated past political turmoil (bolstering), and communicate that steps will be taken to prevent such events from recurring (corrective action). However, the actual effectiveness of these strategies should be empirically tested, and ultimately, only those strategies that have been proven to be effective should be adopted.
On the other hand, the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) asserts that effective crisis communication strategies are not predetermined but depend on the specific type of crisis. Thus, it is essential to first assess the nature of the crisis, with empirical verification also playing a crucial role in determining the best approach.
Interestingly, in the case of South Korea, numerous studies suggest that accommodative strategies, such as mortification or compensation, tend to be more effective, regardless of the crisis type. However, contrary to these findings, in practice, strategies such as inaction, denial, and evasion of responsibility are often employed.
Image Repair Discourse and Importance of Sources
A persuasive narrative is essential to explain the crisis and mitigate negative perceptions. Regardless of the communication strategy chosen, the message must be truthful and clear to a wide range of audiences, including investors, journalists, experts, and the general public. While the message may be adapted to suit the characteristics of each audience, it is crucial that these tailored versions do not contradict each other. Consistency across different audiences ensures credibility and fosters trust in the communication efforts.
Applying this to our current situation, it is essential to develop a narrative that clearly explains the causes and dynamics of the current political uncertainty, while also assuring foreign audiences that such uncertainty will not recur in the future. This narrative must be compelling and tailored to address the concerns of international stakeholders. Regardless of how politically and economically stable South Korea may feel internally, without this transparent and convincing explanation, it will be challenging to alter the perceptions and credibility that foreign audiences have of our country.
In contrast to traditional public diplomacy targets, the key audience for enhancing South Korea’s international credibility consists of market actors—particularly foreign investors, domestic and international economic experts, economic media outlets, and credit rating agencies. Messages must be carefully tailored to meet the specific needs and concerns of these groups.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of a message can vary depending on who is delivering it, even if the same message is broadcast through the same channels. As a result, identifying the right spokesperson for public diplomacy is crucial. The source of information plays a significant role in determining how persuasive the message will be, and the expertise and credibility of the source are essential factors. While direct communication from government authorities is one approach, it may not always be effective due to potential perceptions of bias. A more effective strategy could involve engaging trusted neutral experts who are respected by the target audience, allowing the message to be communicated indirectly through these credible intermediaries.-
South Korea has been recognized as an unprecedented case in history for achieving both democratization and rapid economic growth in a short period of time. Its history of development has inspired numerous countries that are striving for economic progress and democracy, offering them hope and motivation.
This paper argues that public diplomacy can play a crucial role in responding to the challenge posed by declining international credibility due to political uncertainty. This is particularly relevant in the current context, where traditional diplomacy and intergovernmental communication face significant challenges in being carried out effectively. In order to restore Korea’s national image and improve international credibility through public diplomacy, a different approach from previous public diplomacy efforts is required. In this regard, insights from crisis communication research can be quite useful for reshaping our approach.
With the exception of a few advanced countries, many nations around the world struggle with political uncertainty and weak international credibility. The sudden onset of political uncertainty has caused us to face similar challenges. If we can use public diplomacy to improve our vulnerable international credibility, South Korea could become another benchmark example for many countries.
Nations differ significantly from typical organizations, and South Korea, in particular, has unique characteristics that distinguish it from other countries. As a result, the findings from crisis communication research may not be directly applicable to our public diplomacy. However, it is still valuable to approach these insights with an open mind, considering how they could inform and enhance our strategies, while taking into account the specific context and needs of South Korea.
| The Need for Utilizing Public Diplomacy
| Research Implications on Crisis Communication
| A Shift in Thinking and its Limitations
※ The opinions expressed in Sejong Focus are those of the author and do not represent the official views of the Sejong Institute. The original paper was published in Korean, and was translated by the Sejong Institute.
