Sports Diplomacy. Michał Marcin Kobierecki

the national to transnational spheres.²³ This results in attaching greater significance to non-state actors operating in the international arena, particularly transnational corporations and non-state organizations.

      In the contemporary, globalized world full of interdependencies traditional diplomacy understood as a tool of managing relations between states appears to be no longer sufficient, thus creating space for new diplomatic subjects. This changing nature of diplomacy allowed sports subjects to engage. It has also resulted in updating the repertoire of states’ activities and made it possible to engage non-state actors operating in their territories.

      Sport and Public Diplomacy

      There is a strong tendency to regard sports diplomacy as a subcategory of public diplomacy. It is described this way by states that pursue it in an institutionalized way. Many authors also refer to the use of sport within public diplomacy. According to Beata Ociepka, sport plays a vital role in public diplomacy since it may be used to build the international position of a state.²⁴ This part includes a conceptualization of the role of sport, or sports diplomacy, within public diplomacy.

      Public diplomacy developed because of the growing diversity and the intensification of international relations, which required greater specialization of diplomacy and development of its forms. Traditional diplomacy was then accompanied by special missions, conference and parliamentary diplomacy, the diplomacy of global problems, ecologic, cultural, social, military, and public diplomacy.²⁵ Scientific considerations over public diplomacy were pursued since the 1960s in the United States, while the term is associated with a former diplomat Edmund Gullion who established the Edward R. Murrow Center of Public Diplomacy, although for the first time the term was used already in the nineteenth century, but with a different meaning.²⁶

      James Pamment described public diplomacy as the communication of international actor’s policy to citizens of foreign countries. Such communication is pursued by ministries of foreign affairs, NGOs, and organizations of civil society through tools such as media releases, conferences, events, joint endeavors, and cultural exchange or international exchange of employees and students. They are based on the assumption that it is possible to affect relations between governments by engaging citizens whose opinions, values, activities, and interests might help to adjust another government’s attitude.²⁷

      A similar approach to public diplomacy can be observed in certain state documents. The US Department of State described it as informing the foreign public and winning support for the goals of American foreign policy.²⁸ Its primary role is to build up trust between the engaged actors.²⁹ In general, public diplomacy is defined as an activity directed outside, but some authors also distinguish its internal dimension connected to interactions with the domestic audience.³⁰

      Public diplomacy subjects include states (governments and their agencies), public subjects (parliaments and political parties), non-state subjects (NGOs, multinational and transnational corporations, individuals).³¹ Recognition of the role of non-state actors in the early 1990s marked a turning point in constructing the definition of public diplomacy.³² Today authors distinguish public diplomacy pursued by states and grassroots, people-to-people or nongovernmental public diplomacy.³³ This division is defined by some authors as traditional public diplomacy versus new public diplomacy.

      Traditional public diplomacy has been associated with relations between mutually hostile states whose governments attempted to affect other societies to change their governments’ attitudes toward them.³⁴ The new public diplomacy connects to new challenges in international relations, particularly in the context of the growing number of threats in the twenty-first century. One-way communication directed at the external public was supplemented with “listening to others,” dialogue replaced monologue, short-term political goals were replaced by building long-term ties.³⁵ Today cooperation is considered as the third layer of public diplomacy.³⁶ As Nancy Snow illustrated it, traditional diplomacy was about relations between governments, traditional public diplomacy encompassed communication between government and a global audience, while new approaches to public diplomacy assume that both governments and private individuals and groups affect directly and indirectly views and opinions which influence the foreign policy of particular states.³⁷ Stuart Murray had similar observations concerning sports diplomacy. According to him “sports diplomacy 2.0” (later Murray referred to it as simply “sports diplomacy”) comprises its newer type comparing to (traditional) sports diplomacy dominated by governments as a tool of pursuing diplomacy between states. It is more inclusive and besides governmental engagement includes activities of non-state actors and network partnerships typical for the twenty-first-century diplomacy. Such partnerships are comprised of traditional diplomats, corporations, NGOs, civil society organizations, and athletes who employ sport to shape the positive external perception of states.³⁸ This way, the ministry of foreign affairs acts as a sports gatekeeper which facilitates, manages, and evaluates the overall sports diplomacy of a country.³⁹ We can assume that both in the studies on diplomacy in general, and on sports diplomacy, increasing attention has been dedicated to non-state actors. This book, despite being focused on states, fits within this trend, and the sports diplomacy of non-state actors has been dedicated significant attention, even though apart from the chapter on international sports organizations such activities have been investigated in reference to states’ interests and policies.

      “Nation branding” is another relevant term. It refers to treating nations as brands and is defined as a social and governance process aimed at building the state’s image and reputation on an international scale, desirable from the perspective of the strategy of its development.⁴⁰ The term is to a large extent similar to public diplomacy because both of them employ social power to affect the image of a state,⁴¹ although according to the majority of authors, they are not synonyms. Public diplomacy focuses on means through which states and other subjects communicate with citizens and societies of other countries to promote its image, which is later used as an instrument of developing international political relations. Nation branding, on the other hand, primarily addresses the global market with political agencies as a secondary concern.⁴² In short, public diplomacy is focused on political goals, whereas nation branding aims to reach economic objectives.

      Jan Melissen observed that contrary to public diplomacy, nation branding has a much more holistic character and that both terms are complementary, particularly if new public diplomacy is concerned.⁴³ According to Eytan Gilboa, nation branding and public diplomacy are in some aspects very similar, while in others distinct. Similarities refer to managing the image and symbols, building relations and extensive use of mass media, whereas the differences include means, types of communication, management, language, and culture.⁴⁴

      Sports diplomacy as a category confirms complementarity and mutual interfusion of public diplomacy and nation branding. In general, sports diplomacy is perceived as a subcategory of public diplomacy. However, some of its displays are more similar to nation branding. For example, sometimes the goals of hosting sports events are typical for public diplomacy such as deepening understanding between nations, but economic motivation can be equally important. In this context, sports diplomacy is a subcategory of public diplomacy, but at the same time it can be the tool of nation branding.

      Public diplomacy is deeply connected with the concept of soft power. Some authors even define it as a tool of managing soft power resources to increase the international potential of a state, coordinate all soft power assets and use economic power assets,⁴⁵ even though the economy in principle is classified within hard power. The concept of soft power is associated with Joseph Nye, who claimed that the state could sometimes achieve its objectives because other countries will want to follow its lead through admiring values it represents or following its example.⁴⁶ Nye defined public diplomacy as a tool of using soft power assets by governments to communicate particular content to the public in other countries and to attract it.⁴⁷

      When soft power resources are considered, aspects of culture, ideology, and institutions are usually mentioned.⁴⁸ Elements that are taken into account in attempts to rank states from the perspective of soft power include migrations, tourism, sport, culture, presence in the media, technology,