SINCE Harvard professor Joseph Nye introduced the concept of soft power in the early 1990s, public diplomacy has become a key tool in global diplomacy. Governments both democratic and autocratic have embraced it to win the hearts and minds of foreign publics through direct communication and engagement. Soft power, bolstered by public diplomacy, was once considered as crucial as, if not more than, traditional hard power like military strength and economic influence.

However, this idealistic notion is fading in today`s era of great-power competition.

Geopolitical tensions exemplified by conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza and rising nationalism have led nations to prioritise self-interest over international appeal.

Rather than striving for a positive global image, countries are reverting to a realist approach, focusing on power and security at any cost. The cooperative, win-win dynamics of international relations are increasingly giving way to zero-sum nationalismand protectionism.

Nothing illustrates this shift more starkly than the recent summit between US President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky. During their White House meeting, Trump publicly criticised Zelensky for not showing enough gratitude for US military aid. He went as far as blaming Ukraine, rather than Russia, for failing to end the war, while adopting a relatively lenient stance toward Russia the aggressor. The spectacle, which played out on global television, resembled less a diplomatic meeting between allies and more a case of a dominant power strong-arming a weaker partner.

As an academic researching and teaching about public diplomacy and soft power, I am compelled to ask: Does public diplomacy still matter in an age dominated by hard power? Are liberalism and social constructivism still relevant in an increasingly confrontational world filled with realism? Should countries invest in their international reputations when hard power appears more decisive? The short answer is yes. Winning over foreign publics to influence their governments may no longer be as effective as it once was, but public diplomacy is not obsolete. While nationalism makes foreign audiences less receptive to external influence, there are still ways to engage them strategically. Toremain effective, public diplomacy must adapt to shifting geopolitical and technological landscapes. It just needs to be more creative and savvy.

Scholars categorise public diplomacy into three dimensions: informational, reputational and relational. Informational public diplomacy the oldest form focuses on disseminating messages through mass media to justify a country`s policies and positions. Reputational public diplomacy involves nation branding to differentiate a country in the global arena where countries are increasingly becoming similar.

Relational public diplomacy, the most evolved and civilised form, fosters direct engagement with foreign publics through social media and goodwill initiatives.

Historically, the informational model operated on a realist framework, where states aggressively defended their positions. This approach was dominant during the Cold War but receded with the rise of a liberal global order since the Cold War`s end, making way for reputational and relational strategies. Nation branding and cultural exchange programs became central to enhancing soft power.

Yet, today`s increasingly competitive international environment may necessitate a return to informational public diplomacy. While goodwill and branding effortsremain valuable, states must strengthen their messaging to win the global narrative war. This requires crafting compelling stories, bolstering media influence and utilising modern platforms like social media alongside traditional outlets.

The war in Ukraine underscores the urgency of this approach. Beyond the physical battlefield, Russia and Ukraine are engaged in an intense information war. The critical question is whose narrative prevails.

While the West largely views Russia as the aggressor, alternative narratives circulate in many parts of the world. Controlling the global discourse can influence diplomatic alliances and material support. A war can be won or lost depending on that.

At first glance, this renewed focus on competitive informational public diplomacy may resemble past propaganda.

However, today`s audiences are far more discerning.Theinternetprovidesaccessto vast amounts of information, making people less susceptible to manipulation. Still, new challenges arise disinformation and misinformation thrive in the digital space. Modern public diplomacy, therefore, must not only promote national narratives but also combat fake news and distorted narratives.

Additionally, technological advancements are reshaping public diplomacy. Therise of artificial intelligence, big data analytics, and digital diplomacy has given states new tools to craft and disseminate their messages. AI-driven sentiment analysis allows governments to gauge global opinions in real time, while social media algorithms can be leveraged to amplify certain narratives. Countries that invest in digital public diplomacy will likely gain an edge in shaping global perceptions.

In conclusion, public diplomacy remains relevant but must evolve. While the landscape has shifted, countries cannot afford to ignore the power of persuasion in global affairs. By combining traditional messaging with modern digital strategies, nations can navigate the complexities of today`s geopolitical climate while maintaining influence and credibility on the world stage. The ability to shape narratives, counter misinformation, and engage foreign publics will be crucial in defining the future of international relations.-The Korea Herald/ANN