Kamu Diplomasisinin Askerî Boyutu: ABD Muharip Komutanlıklarının Kamu Diplomasisi Faaliyetleri

Year 2018, Volume: 20 Issue: 2, 244 - 270, 23.10.2018

Gülcan Işık Oktay Yıldız

Abstract

Yirminci
yüzyıl başlarına kadar sert güç ve geleneksel diplomasi aracılığı ile çözülen meseleler,
ilerleyen yıllarda farklı araçlar ile çözülür hale gelmiştir. Bu araçların en
bilinir olanlarından biri, İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrası ortaya çıkan ve propaganda
gibi iletişim faaliyetlerinin devamı niteliğindeki kamu diplomasisi kavramıdır.
Yirmi birinci yüzyıl ile birlikte sert gücün en önemli aracı olan ordular da
kamu diplomasisi faaliyetleri icra etmeye başlamışlar ve bu kapsamdaki
çerçevelerini çalışmalarını genişletmişlerdir. Silaha sahip bir kurum olarak
orduların yumuşak güç faaliyetleri icra etmeleri, ilk bakışta çelişkili bir
durum olarak görülebilir. Ancak çağdaş orduların icra ettikleri faaliyetlerin
özü incelendiğinde, bu amaca hizmet edebilecek faaliyetler icra ettikleri
görülmektedir. Bu çalışma ile sert güç ile bu denli özdeşleşmiş bir kurumun
yumuşak gücün geliştirilmesine yönelik kamu diplomasisi gibi faaliyetlerde
nasıl kullanılabileceği sorusunun cevaplanması amaçlanmaktadır. Bu çalışma, kamu
diplomasisinin askerî boyutunu ve bunun uygulamalarını ortaya koyarak literatür
de bu konuda var olan eksikliğin giderilmesi açısından önem taşımaktadır. Bu doğrultuda ABD ordusunun muharip
komutanlıklarının sosyal medya içerikleri nicel ve nitel içerik analizine tâbi
tutulmuştur. Çalışmanın sonunda ABD ordusunun kamu diplomasisinin tüm boyutlarını
kapsayacak şekilde faaliyetlerde bulunmadığı ve ulusal kamu diplomasisi
faaliyetlerine kendi imkânları ve belirli bir sistem dahilin de destek
sağladığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

Kamu diplomasisi, askerî kamu diplomasisi, ABD ordusu, stratejik iletişim, yumuşak güç

The Military Dimension of Public Diplomacy: Public Diplomacy Activities of U.S. Combatant Commands

Abstract

The issues which had been solved through hard power
and traditional diplomacy until the beginning of 20^th century were started
to be solved through different instruments in the advancing years. One of the most
popular of these is the term of public diplomacy which emerged after the Second
World War as an extension of communication activities like propaganda. In the
21^st century, militaries which are the most important components of
hard power have started to conduct public diplomacy activities and constitute
their public diplomacy frameworks. At first glance, it may seem paradoxical
that an institution with weapons conduct soft power activities. However, if the
essence of these activities is examined, it will be understood that these
activities can serve for the soft power purposes. This research aims to answer
the question of “How can militaries, which are identified with hard power, serve
in activities like public diplomacy in order to advance soft power?”. This
research has importance in terms of filling the gap in this realm by examining military
dimension of public diplomacy and its practices. Accordingly, social media
contents of U.S. military were subjected to quantitative and qualitative
content analyses. Eventually, it has been concluded that U.S. military’s public
diplomacy activities do not encompass all dimensions of public diplomacy and it
systematically provides support to national public diplomacy activities in
terms of its capability.

Keywords

Public diplomacy, military public diplomacy, U.S. military, strategic communication, soft power

References

• Babst, S. (2008). Reinventing NATO’s Public Diplomacy. NATO Research Paper(41).
• Berridge, G. R. (2015). Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (5. ed.). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Borg, L. J. (2008). Communicating with intent: the Department of Defense and strategic communication. Incidental Paper, Centre for Information Policy Research and Harvard University.
• Cull, N. J. (2009). "Public Diplomacy" Before Gullion: The Evolution of a Phrase | USC Center on Public Diplomacy. In N. Snow & P. M. Taylor (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (ss. 19-23). New York: Routledge.
• Çetin, M., & Toprak, Y. E. (2016). Çerçeveleme Kuramı Bağlamında Kamuoyu Oluşturmada Spin: Birinci Körfez Savaşı. İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi(42).
• Defense Science Board. (2004). Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication. Erişim Tarihi (12 Şubat 2017) https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/commun.pdf
• Desjardins, J. (2017). U.S. Military Personnel Deployments by Country. Retrieved from http://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-military-personnel-deployments-country/ adresinden 23 Aralık 2017 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• Eisenhower, D. D. (1957). The Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States (January 1 to December 31, 1957). Erişim Tarihi (28 Mart 2017). http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/ppotpus/4728417.1957.001/198?rgn=main;view=image
• Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. The annals of the American academy of political and social science, 616(1), 55-77.
• Greenspan, R. (2011). Public Diplomacy in Uniform: The Role U.S. Department of Defense in Supporting Modern Day Public Diplomacy. Erişim Tarihi (22 Mart 2017). http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2011/0104/comm/greensapn_pduniform.html
• Hammes, T. X. (1994). The Evolution of War: The Fourth Generation. Marine Corps Gazette, 78(9), 35-44.
• International Monetary Fund. (2017). World Economic Outlook. Erişim Tarihi (09Ağustos 2017). http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPPC@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD
• Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2010a). Joint Publication 1-02: Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Amended Through 15 February 2016).
• Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2010b). Joint Publication 3-13.2: Military Information Support Operations (Incorporating Change 1, 20 December 2011).
• Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2010c). Joint Publication 3-61: Public Affairs.
• Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2012). Joint Publication 3-13: Information Operations (Incorporating Change 1, 20 November 2014).
• Karadağ, H. (2016a). Forcing the Common Good: The Significance of Public Diplomacy in Military Affairs. Armed Forces & Society, 43(1), 72-91. doi:10.1177/0095327x16632334
• Karadağ, H. (2016b). Uluslararası İlişkilerde Yeni Bir Boyut Kamu Diplomasisi. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
• Lind, W. S., Nightengale, K., Schmitt, J. F., Sutton, J. W., & Wilson, G. I. (1989). The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation. Marine Corps Gazette, 73(10), 22-26.
• Mogensen, K. (2017). From public relations to corporate public diplomacy. Public Relations Review, 43(3), 605-614. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.03.011
• Morgenthau, H.J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• National Security Strategy. (2015). Washington. Erişim Tarihi (13 Mart 2017). http://nssarchive.us/national-security-strategy-2015/
• Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.
• Nye, J. S. (2009). Get smart: Combining hard and soft power. Foreign Affairs, 160-163.
• Paul, C. (2011a). Getting Better at Strategic Communication. RAND Corporation Erişim Tarihi (27 Mart 2017). http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/2011/RAND_CT366.pdf
• Paul, C. (2011b). Strategic Communication: Origins, Concepts, and Current Debates. California: Praeger.
• Policy Coordinating Committee for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication. (2007). U.S. National Strategy for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication. Erişim Tarihi (06 Mart 2017). http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/state/natstrat_strat_comm.pdf
• Pratkanis, A. R., & Aronson, E. (2008). Propaganda Çağı: İknanın Gündelik Kullanımı ve Suistimali (N. Haliloğlu, Trans.). İstanbul: Paradigma Yayıncılık.
• Riggins, J. (1998). A Strategic Assessment of Public Diplomacy.
• Rumbaugh, R., & Leatherman, M. (2012). The Pentagon as Pitchman: Perception and Reality of Public Diplomacy. Erişim Tarihi (22 Mart 2017). https://www.stimson.org/sites/default/files/file-attachments/Pentagon_as_pitchman_0.pdf
• Snow, N. (2012). Public Diplomacy and Propaganda: Rethinking Diplomacy in the Age of Persuasion. Erişim Tarihi (22 Mart 2017). http://www.e-ir.info/2012/12/04/public-diplomacy-and-propaganda-rethinking-diplomacy-in-the-age-of-persuasion/
• Taylor, P. M. (2009). Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communications. In N. Snow & P. M. Taylor (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (ss. 12-16). New York: Routledge.
• The United Nations. (2014). World Economic Situation and Prospects 2014. Erişim Tarihi (09 Ağustos 2017). http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wesp/wesp_current/2014wesp_country_classification.pdf
• U.S. Department of Defense. (2009). Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review Report. Erişim Tarihi (19 Mart 2017). https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/defenseReviews/QDR/QRMFinalReport_v26Jan.pdf
• U.S. Department of State. (2017). Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Erişim Tarihi (14 Mart 2017) https://www.state.gov/r/
• U.S. Joint Forces Command. (2010). Commander’s Handbook for Strategic Communication and Communication Strategy. Suffolk.
• United Nations Human Deveplopment Programme. (2015). Human Development Reports. Erişim Tarihi (09 Ağustos 2017). http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI
• Wallin, M. (2015). Military Public Diplomacy: How the Military Influences Foreign Audiences. Erişim Tarihi (09 Mart 2017). https://www.americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Ref-0185-Military-Public-Diplomacy.pdf
• Weed, M. C. (2012). U.S. Public Diplomacy: Legislative Proposals to Amend Prohibitions on Disseminating Materials to Domestic Audiences.
• White House. (2009). National Framework Strategic Communicaton. Washington. Erişim Tarihi (10 Şubat 2017). https://fas.org/man/eprint/pubdip.pdf
• Winger, G. (2014). The Velvet Gauntlet: a theory of defense diplomacy. Paper presented at the Institute for Human Sciences: Fellows' Conference, Vienna, Austria. Erişim Tarihi (21 Aralık 2017). http://www.iwm.at/publications/5-junior-visiting-fellows-conferences/vol-xxxiii/the-velvet-gauntlet/