Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14


DOI: 10.5570/dfnd. 201101055

COBISS.BH-ID 1863192

UDK 341.7:[343.41:327.56

Haris Peto, MA1

US Embassy Sarajevo
Office of Defence Cooperation
This paper is an attempt to open up the issue of the role of diplomacy in the fight
against terrorism. Diplomacy has a great and irreplaceable role in the fight against modern terrorism. Diplomatic skills probably appeared at the very beginning of human civilization during the creation of first organized human communities. Although warfare and
use of weapons have been the most important means of foreign policy for thousands of
years, the appearance of states has necessarily lead to diplomatic communication between them. As a result of this, it is possible to identify a certain diplomatic practice in
ancient China, India, Assyria, Egypt, Persia, etc. Diplomatic relations were regulated for
the first time in ancient Greece, in which city-states persistently fought for hegemony,
entering into and dissolving alliances, and changing missions. The most significant result
of this is the principle of absolute inviolability of envoys. This principle was also later on
taken over by Rome. Gaius Julius Caesar also demonstrated great diplomatic skills by
applying the method that was later on raised to the axiom contained in the Latin proverb
divide et impera (divide and rule).
As early as at that time, diplomacy was present as a discourse in peaceful management of international relations, mostly through negotiations, although diplomacy
mostly preceded wars. It is beyond doubt that most diplomatic activities require an extensive use of knowledge. In this context, diplomacy may be described as an intellectual
activity based on continuous gathering and processing of information, its analysis and
the resulting decision making.
Key words: diplomacy, terrorism, negotiations

1 Correspondence to: Haris Peto, MA, Mob: +387 61 225-391, Tel: +387 33 225-899, E-mail: haris.pesto@
us.army.mil, PestoH@state.gov


Modern diplomacy represents a complex set of skills, institutional and extra institutional international relations, which are not limited to formal contacts between representatives of governments of various countries, as opposed to traditional diplomacy. Todays diplomacy is much more a diplomacy that is taking place between the representatives of social associations, informal institutions, non-governmental organizations, intellectuals, analysts and researchers, than diplomacy between two or more ministries of
foreign affairs, which is achieved through diplomatic missions in relevant states. This,
however, is not the only characteristic of modern diplomacy, although it results in numerous other characteristics of diplomatic communication.
Some other characteristics of modern diplomacy include an increasing emphasis
on multilateral relations as opposed to bilateral relations, the increasing role of large international organizations as opposed to strictly inter-state negotiations, as well as an increasing impact of the globalization process on drafting of agendas of international negotiations. It is for these reasons that modern diplomacy is called multi-track diplomacy,
where traditional actors are participating only to a relatively small extent, and other, new
actors are participating more and more at an increasing number of different levels with
their own new methodologies, interests, access and ideas.
The basic function of diplomacy is representation of the proper country abroad
and the promotion of its interests and goals. It has the purpose of being the instrument for
the implementation of foreign policy defined by the government bodies (the president,
government, parliament or other bodies authorized under the constitution), and through
them by the governing group. The implementation of foreign policy and supporting international relations with other entities (countries, international organizations, etc.) also implies the development of specific methods (among other things, this also includes the
diplomatic protocol), and the apparatus performing this duty (the so-called foreign affairs
department). In simple terms, the tasks of the diplomacy are: to represent, negotiate, protect and inform its country. If we take a historic look, it may be said that the development
of international relations, promotion of the position of proper country and prevention of
war represent the most important activities of diplomacy. Except the traditional political
relations, diplomatic activities also include economic, cultural, scientific, military and
other relations. The modern diplomacy, in addition to traditional tasks, also deals with
such issues as human rights, illegal migrations, environmental protection, organized
crime, and it also participates in the fight against terrorism.
Diplomacy represents the most powerful tool of every country in the fight
against modern terrorism that evidently crosses state boundaries in many of its forms. As
a global problem, terrorism covers the whole planet through terrorist groups and organizations. An adequate and skillfully implemented diplomacy is the central subject that
consolidates all anti-terrorist measures in a compact and related whole. Political and diplomatic antiterrorist measures should contribute to the resolution of conflicts of resolute

type and be directed towards the resolution of conflicts through the means of public dialogue and the so-called secret diplomacy. These methods prevent terrorist organizations
from participating in mass movements that bring certain changes, including political
ones: a well tried structure of movements is being strengthened, whereby the impact of
terrorist organizations is reduced, partial or conditional amnesty is granted to the members of some terrorist movements that are on the verge of the so-called liberation movements, diplomatic pressure is exercised on countries and all other supporters of terrorist
organizations (withdrawal of diplomatic staff from countries that provide financial or
moral support to terrorism, termination of diplomatic relations with that countries, etc.).
Diplomacy therefore has a major role in anti-terrorist activities in general, no
matter whether in agreements, negotiations or even mediation, aiming at finding an antiterrorist solution in a peaceful manner. The holders of political and diplomatic activities
are the highest ranking state leaders and bodies (president, assembly, government). Their
role in diplomatic anti-terrorist activities is decisive, because they: ensure a standardized
approach to problems of modern terrorism through timely activities abroad, whereby the
focus lies on the obligation of countries not to provide material or political support to terrorist activities, insisting on removal of causes of terrorism, irrespective of the scope and
intensity of its activity, public provision of data and evidence in the initial phase, based
on which it is possible to confirm the presence of terrorist organizations and groups, in
order to ensure international assistance and support to the fight against terrorism, conduct
of timely consultations with regional, European and global relevant political stakeholders
for the purpose of obtaining support for the planned anti-terrorist activities.
Although political support is provided in an easier manner, military anti-terrorist
action is never given up if diplomatic activities cannot prevent violence or threat of violence. In addition to the mentioned activities, political and diplomatic anti-terrorist activities also include activities on causes of terrorism that the great powers and UN are
informed about for the purpose of obtaining international support for the implementation
of an efficient anti-terrorist action. It is very important to persuade officials of countries
and representatives of international organizations to refuse secret contacts with terrorists
and not to provide them with support, especially material support (transit, stay, purchase
of weapons and training of terrorists), and it is important that governments of friendly
countries provide public support to an endangered country in relation to measures that are
taken during anti-terrorist activities. Persistent diplomatic activity may create conditions
for aggressive international criticism of countries that are benevolent towards terrorists,
which may result in a change of the attitude of these countries or their permanent cease of
support to terrorists. Modern diplomatic activity contributes to the fact that during various
gatherings (political, expert and scientific) of international government and non-governmental organizations, terrorists are treated in compliance with the UN Charter and international conventions on fighting terrorism. Political and diplomatic activities are thus an
extremely important framework for actions of the country, but also for decision making
on the use of units for anti-terrorist actions, in order to preserve the general international
support for actions of security forces against terrorist activities.



Terrorism has also opened a new chapter in internal and international negotiations. Governments are often forced to negotiate with terrorists, especially in case of
hostage taking. They negotiate with terrorists with the aim of making them give up their
intention and turn themselves in, or, if they are under control or in prison, to cooperate on
the detection of the terrorist network and intentions. This is a very specific type of negotiations on the one side there is the state, and on the other individuals or organizations
that are not recognized, but that obtain the negotiation status through sheer force or threat
of sheer force.
Governments often offer terrorist a combination of safe surrender, amnesty or
diminishing of sentences for previous criminal offences, benefits and security guarantees
for them or their family members. The purpose of these settlements is to reduce the number of terrorists and weaken their network. A side effect may be distrust and suspicion
among the terrorists.2
Having learned from the experience of the first amnesty, terrorists applied the
counter tactics to abolish the other. When terrorists are caught, the government has a good
chance of negotiating with them, offering them a milder sentence in exchange for information.3 Red Brigades were considered as the ideologically most committed of all major
Italian terrorist groups and the most irreconcilable group when it comes to any kind of
cooperation with the state. The peak of their power and activities was the kidnapping and
later on murdering of the Prime Minister Aldo Moro (March May 1978). In this case,
there was the typical prisoner dilemma. Firstly, the law provided the special prosecutor
with wide possibilities to make an enormous difference in the treatment of those who are
ready to cooperate (freeing from sentence or minimum sentence, including protection
from vendetta) and draconic sentences in case of persons who refuse to cooperate. Secondly, any communication among prisoners was made impossible. Thirdly, and maybe
most importantly, the mutual trust of the arrested persons was at a very low level.
Red Brigades are namely relatively small groups of ideologically firmly committed like-minded persons, who knew one another well, turned into a big and complex
organization that also recruited completely marginal members as compared to general
goals. Some of these new members were simply tyrants, brought to do dirty work. Others were allegedly drug addicts. In any case, the ideological goals meant for the newcomers much less than to those from the original nucleus. The arrested members of the
Brigades, including also the most orthodox ones, were aware of the fact that there was
a big possibility that other prisoners might testify against them. They thus were significantly encouraged to cooperate. And when a large number of members of the Red Bri-

2 The amnesty of the President Akino in the Philippines resulted in bloody purges among the insurgent and
terrorist groups. Two amnesties in Columbia gave different results: the first succeeded, the second failed. In
case of the first amnesty, there were many terrorists who were ready to turn themselves in, and in case of the
second amnesty, there were not; secondly, after the first amnesty, the most important terrorist groups (M-19
and FARC) have significantly sharpened security measures; and finally, the terrorists responded with bloody
attacks to the second amnesty, in order to make the government recall the amnesty.
3 The best known case of that kind is the Italian Penitence Law, which many persons consider crucial for a
successful retribution in case of the Red Brigades in the period 1970 1978.


gades were in prison, the ball started unwinding fast. A similar attempt in Germany did
not lead to such results.
There was no special prosecutor with great powers, the prisoners had the opportunity to communicate (and agree), and the arrested persons kept their mutual trust, because they were a smaller, tightly connected group.4
All these cases point to a serious problem that democratic societies based on
rule of law are facing: to what extent it is justified to limit democratic postulates and individual freedoms in order to render possible more efficient fight against organized crime
and terrorism. (Kovaevi, 2004: 437)
Terrorists who belong to ideological, religious or racist fundamentalist circles are
generally the least prepared ones for cooperation. The very suicide terrorist attacks demonstrate that no victim is big enough for them. Being fully indoctrinated and convinced of
the justifiability of even the most brutal action, they hardly decide to negotiate with the
authorities when they get caught, because they believe that it would be the betrayal of a
great goal. Not even the promised award or the possible sentence, even if it is the strictest
one, have any impact on them. This is why in case of these kinds of terrorism, domestic,
regional or international, it is most difficult to apply the stick and carrot method.
Kidnapping and hostage taking are very frequent forms of terrorist acts, in which
terrorists set the blackmail and ask a certain action of the government in exchange for
setting free the hostages: sometimes it is about a financial blackmail, but in cases of political, ideological or religious terrorism, the most frequent request is setting free their
fellows and the guarantee of their own safe asylum or change of government politics that
is endangering their goals. In case of kidnapping, the location of the terrorists is unknown,
and they personally feel safe, and in case of hostage taking, the government controls the
location and the terrorists might face a possible action of the government, which might
threaten their lives. These are situations with high stakes on both sides, which win or lose
in a very dramatic way. In case of the government, the dilemma is very complex: not accepting the demands of the terrorists and allowing the hostages to be killed, or yielding
and encouraging future terrorist acts. The situation is therefore more complex and delicate, since the negotiations on hostages have to take place on the spot, under the strong
floodlights of the public. It is necessary to express at the same time two opposed and
hardly compatible attitudes: primary care for the lives of the hostages and decisiveness in
fighting terrorism.
Important elements for decision making are related to the assessment of the
risks of a police action against the terrorists on the one hand, and the readiness of the
terrorists to follow through on the threat and really kill the hostages, on the other hand,
even although that also means their own death. The motive of the terrorists is crucial for
this assessment: religious or other fanaticism, the fight for independence or autonomy,
mental derangement, personal freedom or wish for money or publicity. (Kovaevi,
2004: 438)
4 In the operation Sablja after the murder of the Prime Minister ini, the Italian experience was applied.
A new law was adopted, which increased the powers of the police and investigation bodies (extension of the
sentence, etc.), rendered possible the appointment of a special prosecutor with special powers and introduced protected witnesses, aiming at making the arrested persons cooperate for the purpose of discovering
members of the criminal or terrorist network.


This also has a significant impact on whether it is a well trained and indoctrinated group, in case of which the chances for a police action without endangering the
lives of the hostages are small, or laymen, which increases the chances of success. Some
research results suggest that only 1% of terrorists that had hostages gave up the set requests. Terrorists show adaptable behavior they adapt their actions on the demonstrated
willingness and ability of the government to defeat them.
Smaller instrumental concessions during negotiations, such as ensuring food,
safe surrender, and even safe leaving (if the hostages were not hurt) did not have a direct
impact on the increase in terrorism.5 When efficient protection measures are taken, some
types of terrorism become less intensive. Plane high jacking cases became less numerous
since metal detectors had been introduced, as well as the attacks on embassies. Terrorists
always successfully adapt to changed circumstances and find new goals in locations
where the protection is weakest and the surprise factor biggest. Countries always need
more time for adaptable behavior. Only the dramatic attack on the World Trade Center in
New York opened the eyes of the government to what extent the control in American
airports was inadequate, especially on internal flights, which renders the territory of the
USA very vulnerable.
Kovaevi claims that when a country in the fight against terrorism goes into
unselective repression towards those that peacefully oppose the politics of the government or use excessive means of coercion against persons suspected of sympathizing or
supporting terrorists and arrested terrorists, it is very probable that this will lead to new
violence. Research results suggest that there is a direct link between torture of suspected
and convicted terrorists and increase in terrorism. Also, extraordinary measures or restriction of civil freedoms have not lead to a decrease in terrorism.
Human rights have to be respected in the fight against terrorism. Activities of
the Organization should be part of the three-segment strategy that will support global
efforts to: (a) prevent dissatisfied groups from engaging in terrorism (b) withhold the
means for the execution of terrorist acts to groups and individuals; (c) persist in a widely
set international cooperation in the fight against terrorism. (Kovaevi, 2004: 439)
The United Nations has to ensure that the key preoccupation is the protection
of human rights. Terrorism frequently thrives in locations where human rights are violated, which requires additional actions for fighting violations of human rights. The very
terrorism has to be understood as a violation of fundamental rights. In all cases, the fight
against terrorism has to comply with international obligations related to human rights.


The USA possess a great military power and have the capability to overpower
most of the opponents they might have a conflict with, even if they do not have an ally in
5 Terrorist acts in France had been rare for a long period of time after the war, until 1973, when the French
bowed to the requests of terrorists during the seizure of their embassy in the Saudi Arabia. Over the coming
three years, the number of terrorist attacks tripled. As of February 1976, the French government has been
applying a completely different policy in case of terrorists in three different cases: it killed the terrorists in
Djibouti, extradited the members of the Bader-Meinhof group to Germany (whereas previously it had granted them asylum) and it took for the first time strict attitude towards Ustasha terrorists.


that conflict. However, there is some concern in the USA when it comes to their military
power. There are four main reasons for this concern: understanding the limitations of
military power, motivation of others to challenge the USA, misunderstanding the nature
of the challenge to be faced, and therefore also misunderstanding the nature of responses
to that challenge, and overlooking of values that are at stake, which the USA stand for.
After September 11, 2001, the USA developed a new national security strategy
in order to fight global terrorism. Military power of the USA became the key means in this
fight, and it was also used to prevent potential threats. The means that has been often neglected in this fight is public diplomacy, which also includes diplomacy and use of information in order to influence foreign public opinion on American foreign policy goals. The
use of information and diplomacy, often referred to as soft power, may be considered
a part of the information war, which is conducted together with hard power, or military
and economic power.
There are still no clear results on the success of the US military power in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it became clear that the USA are losing the information war of
ideas and that the international public is starting to express doubts about the war on terrorism. For example, the pictures and videos that became public in spring 2004, which
show torture of Iraqi prisoners by military staff of the USA had a very bad effect on the
American policy in Iraq and the opinions of the foreign public when it comes to the war
on terrorism. Also, as a result of these incidents, the USA damaged their credibility in the
Muslim public across the Middle East, and the Islamic extremists used this as an excuse
to justify the murders of the civilians in the USA. Hans N. Tuch, a retired foreign affairs
officer of the American State Department, defines public diplomacy as: government process of communication directly with foreign public with the aim of understanding our
current policy and national goals, our ideas and ideals, and our culture and institutions6.
Philip Seib, a professor of journalism and public diplomacy, and the head of the Public
Diplomacy Center at the University of South California, defines public diplomacy as:
outreach of the government (and some non-governmental actors) to foreign audience,
rather than limiting itself to the traditional communication of a government with another
When we speak about the goals of public diplomacy and methods used for their
achievement, according to the former United States Information Agency USIA, public
diplomacy is trying to promote the national interest and national safety of the USA
through understanding, information and impact on international public and expansion of
dialogue between American citizens and institutions and citizens and institutions abroad.
The public diplomacy includes two wider functions that are implemented by staff that
was specially trained for work in foreign countries. This staff is mostly stationed in various US missions abroad.
These functions of public diplomacy are:
- Short-term explaining the existing politics of the USA, forwarding of
speeches of the US President and State Secretary and representation of the
mentioned officials during visits,
6 Hans N. Tuch: Understanding Public Diplomacy, Public Diplomacy Council, http://www.publicdiplomacycouncil.org/uploads/Tuch_Definition_PD.pdf , September 1, 2009
7 Philip Seib: Toward a More Imaginative U.S. Public Diplomacy, The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-seib/toward-a-more-imaginative_b_243054.html, August 12, 2009


Long-term exchanges involving students, libraries and American studies

programs, building of relationships with writers and editors who accept
American values, publication of theoretical journals in local languages.

These functions of public diplomacy had been within the competence of the
USIA for decades. USIA was closed in 1999, and its functions were taken over by the
State Department.
There is also the third function of public diplomacy, which is international informing. Reduction of budget after the Cold War weakened the Voice of America VOA
to such an extent that the service in Arabic broadcast its program only seven hours per
day. Also, the program in Arabic was broadcast in an Arabic dialect, and it is exactly the
Arabic world that is known by the large number of dialects, so that this program has
reached only 2% of the total Arabic population. Some of the basic means used by the
public diplomacy are printed publications, cultural exchanges, movies, television and
radio. Public diplomacy may be best understood based on all efforts in the field of public
information that were officially undertaken by the US government, directed towards informing and impacting the foreign public opinion with the aim of influencing their view
of the US, US citizens and US foreign policy goals.
After the fall of communism, many public diplomacy programs that had been
implemented during the Cold War were no longer needed and they were closed.8 The
American public diplomacy could direct its efforts to countries such as Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and China, in which the communist regime survived, but it nevertheless
concentrated on former communist countries in Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union
In 1998, the US Congress adopted the Act on Foreign Affairs Reform and Reconstruction, whereby the USIA ceased to exist, and its role of public diplomacy leader
was taken over by the State Department. With the closing of the USIA, the State Department assigned many of its functions related to public information programs to its cultural
and information centers abroad or departments of US embassies, making them thereby
available to the public. In terms of information, the USA was fully unprepared during the
transition from the 20th into the 21st century for what happened on September 11, 2001.
George W. Bush became the president of the US in January 2001. The new US
President made no new political decision related to the implementation of public diplomacy or international public information, but he decided to continue the programs and
keep the political directives from the administration period of his predecessor, Bill Clinton. When it comes to terrorism, in the country the USA focused on organizational changes of federal, state and local structures and policies that included the application of laws,
intelligence operations. As regards foreign countries, the US foreign policy focused on
defeating terrorism, not dealing with consequences of terrorism at home. Together with
military actions directed against terrorism, there was renewed interest in the public diplo8 For example, the Radio Free Europe RFE was no longer the only source of information outside Eastern
Europe. Cultural and educational exchange was no longer limited to programs run by the Government, because the borders had been opened for travels, trade and exchange.
9 In the USA during the twenties of the 20th century the budget for the implementation of public diplomacy
had been slowly decreasing, so that the budget of the USIA of that time was reduced by 30% in the period


macy activities abroad with the aim of winning the hearts and minds and fighting antiAmericanism in the Arab countries.
The report of the committee on September 11 suggests that the word war precisely marks the effort to eliminate terrorists on the spot, but also requires widely reaching social mobilization. After the closing operations in Afghanistan, the scope of military
activities was significantly reduced. It was therefore emphasized in this report that longterm success requires the use of all elements of government power: diplomacy, intelligence services, secret operations, legal departments, economic policy, assistance to foreign countries, public diplomacy and defense sector. The then President Bush appointed
Charlotte Beers the new Deputy Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the
State Department. Charlotte Beers initiated a public information campaign that aimed at
presenting the Arabs living and working in the USA and American tolerance of Islam. The
main product of her office was a 25-page pamphlet entitled Terrorism Network.
This pamphlet, which was distributed in 36 languages, included strong and realistic photos showing destruction on September 11, strong comments against Al-Qaida and
the Taliban and condemnation of terrorism by world leaders such as Kofi Annan, Tony
Blair, and Jiang Zemin. Also, the office of Charlotte Beers printed thousands of posters in
a series entitled Mosques of America, which were distributed globally. Through publications such as The life of Muslims in America, the State Department wished to show
the variety of the democratic society, emphasizing the religious tolerance in multicultural
and multiethnic societies such as the USA. In relation to this, the State Department also
organized conferences on religious pluralism. The goal of these activities of the US public
diplomacy was to show the incorrectness of the terrorist message that the USA are antiMuslim and anti-Islamic.
The US President at that time, George W. Bush, was personally engaged in public diplomacy after the terrorist attacks. Three days after September 11, President Bush
had the main role in the holding of the ecumenical mass at the National Cathedral. The
President of US Muslims assisted in its implementation. Several days later, the US President visited the Islamic Center, or a mosque in Washington, where he made statements
related to his view of Islam as a religion of peace. Also, in November of the same year,
President Bush invited the ambassadors of the member countries of the Organization of
the Islamic Conference OIC, for a prayer and breaking of the Ramadan fasting in the
White House.
For the time being, there is no sign of more specific definition of the role of the
US President in public diplomacy, which would in any case significantly contribute to the
strengthening of the US public diplomacy. If a clearer role of the President in public diplomacy is desired in order to additionally strengthen this segment of the US policy, the
key elements of the directive of the President related to public diplomacy should be:
- Clear policy and strengthening of the abilities of the US government to communicate with public abroad,
- An efficient structure for the coordination of the most important elements of
civil and military public diplomacy,
- The request that all regional committees for coordination of the policy of the
National Security Council Policy Coordinating Committees assess possible
consequences on the public opinion and develop communication strategies
in compliance with the selected policy when analyzing political options,

Directing public diplomacy resources, trainings, programs, budget and technology, attention devoted to the relationship with non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
International organizations, commercial media companies and coalition allies,
Schedule of the given goals and standards for the assessment of progress in
achieving the reforms (Peterson, 2002).

At the beginning of the war on terrorism, the White House established an agency
called the Coalition Information Center CIC, which had its offices in Washington, London and Pakistan. The purpose of this agency was to inform the public on war goals of the
Western allies and render possible quick rebuttal of enemy claims on civilian victims and
successes in the war field. Also, the CIC supported the Initiative of Afghan Women in
order for the women to take their position in the post-Taliban power structures, which
aimed at emphasizing the humane and freedom aspect of the victory in Afghanistan. The
Department of Defense DOD took over the activities related to hiring of individual
agencies in order to participate in the information war on terrorism. The Rendon Group
TRG, which was lead by John Rendon, former President of the Democratic National
Committee, is one of the examples of agencies hired by DOD. TRG was a strategic consulting company in the field of communication, whose clients were foreign governments,
CIA, DOD, so that it was hired by the US Government to create certain media products,
conduct a media analysis abroad and other information products that aim at influencing
foreign public opinion.
TRG provided direct support to DOD after September 11 through the analysis of
media in the Arabic countries, such as Al Jazeera and Aal Arabiyya. Also, TRG made
proposals to DOD in relation to a manner of parrying the anti-American topics and messages. One of the projects designed by the office of TRG in Boston was called peace
strengthening, and the goal of that campaign was linking American and Muslim high
schools through the Internet in order to break the communication barrier and spread cultural understanding. In the field of public diplomacy and information fight against terrorism, the State Department also hired its consultants with the aim of defining ways of
parrying the anti-American feelings in the Middle East and strengthening the efforts of its
public diplomacy. The then State Secretary, Colin Powell, appointed Edward Gergan, a
former US ambassador, as Chairman of the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for
Arab and Muslim World. The study, which was published in October 2003, was entitled
Changing Minds, Winning Peace: A New Strategic Direction for US Public Diplomacy
in the Arab and Muslim World. The basic recommendation of the Advisory Group on
Public Diplomacy included:
- Structural changes in internal agency processes, in order to include the State
Secretariat, the White House, the National Security Council NSC and
other important institutions and bodies with the new presidential directive
that was supposed to emphasize the importance of public diplomacy in these
- Bigger participation of the US Agency for International Development
(USAID) and DOD in all directions of policy and public diplomacy programs,

Additional gathering of funds and organization of professional staff in the

field of public diplomacy that knows the Middle East and its culture, religion and language,
Major use of information technologies during communication with Arab
and Muslim societies, but also the use of new methods for measuring success or failure of efforts that were made,
Numerous English language courses and other means of education, in order to
ensure better chances for Muslim youth to get training for certain professions,
Expansion of the program ''American Corner'' and creation of new projects
entitled ''Library of American Knowledge'', which are particularly available
at Middle East universities (Kilroy, 2005: 132)

The report of the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy also included proposals
for the implementation of the mentioned recommendations. For example, this group supported the increase in educational exchange programs not only at Arab universities, but
also through better mutual coordination of the (International Military Education and
Training Fund IMET) of DOD and USAID programs. The target group of this educational exchange were the most important persons in governments, education, military and
economic sector of foreign countries, who would have the opportunity to travel to the
USA and participate in various education programs and trainings.
The Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy was of the opinion that USA studies
at universities in the Middle East, as well as Middle East studies at the US universities
would render possible a better understanding and dialogue and improve the exchange of
opinions when it comes to cultural, political and social issues.
As opposed to ''hard power'', which is based on coercion and results from military and economic power, the ''soft power'' is not based on coercion, but rather on the
ability of a country to impose its will in coordination with other countries, by using the
attractiveness of its culture and values, ideas and institutions. When a country has such an
impact that it is able to motivate other countries to accept the same values, then such a
country may in a way be classified as one of the leading countries.
The ''soft power'' also includes propaganda, but it is wider than the propaganda
itself. It includes real power, or the ability to achieve a goal. When a country is able of
persuading other countries into the accuracy of its ideas and values and achieving a situation in which other countries wish to have the same goals and wishes as the country in
question, then the use of the ''hard power'' is not that necessary, or behavior towards others
based on the principle of ''stick and carrot''.
According to Joseph S. Nye, the ''soft power'' of a country is composed of
three elements: culture (state), which for some people is popular culture, and for others
language, classical music and literature, science and education or technological achievements; political values present in a country, based on which it is possible to see the
impact of domestic policy on the way how the country is seen abroad; and the foreign
policy of a country in situations in which it is seen as legitimate and with a moral authority, so that here it is possible to see the emotional impact of media reporting on
actions implemented abroad.
Until 2000, the ''soft power'' of the USA was strong. The attractiveness of the US
society and institutions was based on the great economic power of the USA, and there

was also a pronounced domination of the American business, television, movies, music,
and a significant wish for immigration to the USA. During that period, the American
foreign policy relied upon the ''soft'' and ''hard power''. However, as of September 11,
2001, the American ''soft power'' was declining due to the controversial policy of the Bush
administration that relied upon a sharp use of diplomacy and military power. The public
diplomacy and cultural exchange programs were neglected as a result of this, which lead
to a failure in the promotion of the US society abroad.
As of 2001, the US foreign policy, and especially during the last Iraq war, has
become extremely unpopular, strengthening thereby the anti-American feelings and causing a decline in the American ''soft power''. There is consensus on the fact that both the
''hard power'' and ''soft power'' are extremely important for the US foreign policy and its
fight against terrorism. Prevention of the expansion of terrorism and achievement of various other goals, including also the efforts to promote democracy abroad, require the
willingness to help other countries and peoples. Also, there are places where the USA
cannot go in search for terrorist leaders, so that in such a situation a wider cooperation in
the field of information gathering and prevention of terrorist financing is necessary. In
other words, neglecting of the ''soft power'' by the USA limits its ability to persuade and
impact others. In the era of global communication, there is a noticeable increase in the
importance of ''soft powers''. Communication technologies have an impact on the ''decrease'' of the world and create ideal conditions for the expansion of the ''soft power''
through information control.
Polls conducted in 2005 showed that many peoples believed that Europe and
China play much more positive roles in the world as compared to the USA, which had an
impact on a decline in the popularity of the USA.10 Pew Charitable Trust conducted a poll
that showed that the attractiveness of the USA drastically declined between 2001 and
2003 in 19 out of 27 countries.
Negative attitudes towards the hard power of the Bush administration even
emerged in Great Britain, the closest American ally. The USA is trying to strengthen their
efforts in leading a softer war on terrorism.
The initiatives of the State Department in the field of public diplomacy, such as
the educational and cultural exchange, have helped in showing many non-commercial
aspects of American values and culture and to influence the public opinion abroad. However, the USA still have no coherent strategy in the field of public diplomacy that should
render possible showing the American values in the best way and impacting the public
opinion abroad in an efficient way. A very important element that reduces the attractiveness of the USA abroad is a lack of knowledge of US citizens on foreign countries. With
the decline in the capacity of the soft power the USA are also losing their power of
In the attempt to achieve an impact on North Korea to make it renounce its mass
destruction weapons, the USA had to leave the leading role to China. In the previous decade, due to the increased growth of its economy, China had been trying to develop its
own soft power by influencing other countries through regional assistance, public di10 For example, the poll conducted in 2005 by the Australian Lowy Institute showed that only somewhat more
than 50% of Australians who were polled had a positive opinion about the USA, and approximately the same
percentage of polled persons considered the foreign policy of the USA a threat.


plomacy, cooperation with multilateral institutions and favoring free trade. The Chinese
Office of the Chinese Language Council International opened 135 Confucius institutes
around the world with the purpose of teaching Chinese language. This office is part of a
wider campaign that includes investment and diplomacy and also cultural efforts with the
purpose of speeding up the development of China towards the status of a great power.
There are two mechanisms that can help the USA overcome the challenges of achieving
a hegemony position and therefore also strengthen their soft power. The first mechanism represents an approximately equal distribution of power in the international system,
because the USA, when facing an opposite power that is able to parry them, would be
forced to choose a much more conservative strategy instead of hegemony. Another limiting mechanism is the US political system that prevents government leaders from initiating unnecessary adventures.
Diplomacy is the most powerful tool of every country in the fight against modern terrorism which goes beyond state boundaries, unhindered in many aspects and encouraged by globalization. Terrorist groups and organizations thus build their networks in
the whole world. Diplomacy, skillfully guided, represents a connective tissue that incorporates all anti-terrorism measures into one compact and well-connected whole. Without
efficient diplomacy, anti-terrorism measures and activities are fragmented and unconnected, and therefore also inefficient. In terms of the fight against modern terrorism, diplomacy does not relate only to professional diplomats working abroad, but also to all
officials performing other tasks, specialized for and related to the fight against terrorism.
Diplomacy is the key in the fight against modern international terrorism that
knows no boundaries in many aspects. Terrorist groups are continuously expanding their
scope of activities. The fight against a terrorist network, such as the one including AlQaida, requires the cooperation of numerous countries, since the network is also active in
numerous countries. Efficient anti-terrorist diplomacy consolidates all these activities
into a coherent whole.
Anti-terrorist diplomacy is not only the duty of professional diplomats at ministries of foreign affairs. Persons in charge of other specialized anti-terrorist duties have to
cooperate closely with colleagues abroad. Regulatory agencies in charge of safety of the
passenger air transport have to, for example, perform a completely diplomatic function
and ensure the necessary coordination in case of overlapping of domestic and international security systems. Customs officers and immigration officers have the same task.
The most part of that specialized cooperation is implemented bilaterally, but multilateral
diplomacy may also make a significant contribution. Multilateral diplomacy, which also
includes the UN resolutions and dozens of international conventions on terrorism, also
improves international regulations against terrorism. Some conventions, such as the convention on airplane high jacking, represent the basis for practical cooperation in case of
overlapping national competences. There are evident lacks of diplomacy as means in the
fight against terrorism. Terrorist do not change their behavior as a result of a UN convention or resolution. But diplomacy supports all other means, no matter whether it deepens

the moral strength standing behind them, or whether it ensures the international legal
framework for their use.
Financial supervision is an important tool in supervision of terrorist activities.
By cutting off terrorist financial means their activities are reduced or even blocked, because terrorists, when preparing their operations, need to have sufficient tools. When
stopping terrorist activities, we are facing two great problems. One of them is that terrorism does not require significant financial assets. The other problem lies in the fact that it
is extremely difficult to trace terrorist funds, and both of these represent an obstacle for
all forms of fight against and combating modern terrorism.
1. Hans N. Tuch: Understanding Public Diplomacy, Public Diplomacy Council,
2. Kilroy, R. (2005). Public Diplomacy: Government, Universities, and the War on
Terrorism, The Journal of Public Affairs, 2005, Vol. 8, p. 123144.
3. , . (2004), , ,
4. Peterson, P. G. (2002). Public Diplomacy and the War on Terrorism, Foreign Affairs. Vol. 81, Issue 5. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=111,
5. Philip Seib: Toward a More Imaginitive U.S. Public Diplomacy, The Huffington Post,
html, 12. 8. 2009.
Paper received: 30.09.2010.
The work was approved: 30.10.2010.