Coherent Identifier About this item: 20.500.12592/4nd0ck

ACADEMIC PAPER SERIES - LIMITS OF PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND SOFT POWER: LESSONS FROM THE THAAD DISPUTE FOR SOUTH KOREA’S FOREIGN POLICY

15 April 2021

Summary

WHEN DO PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND SOFT POWER There are two possible conclusions to be drawn from the NOT WORK AND WHY? THAAD case: The case of Chinese economic retaliation in response to 1) Korea’s public diplomacy did not succeed in the decision to deploy THAAD is useful in assessing the building the type of soft power that meets Nye’s effectiveness of Korea’s foreign policy in general and its narrow. [...] Limits of Public Diplomacy and Soft Power: Lessons from the THAAD Dispute for South Korea’s Foreign Policy 7 ACADEMIC PAPER SERIES The case of THAAD deployment and subsequent Chinese Once the Moon government assumed power in May 2017, retaliation exemplifies that the limit of one country’s public it undertook efforts to rebuild the Sino-Korean diplomatic diplomacy reaches as far as another country. [...] views and opinions towards the outside world.72 A study on Korea’s public diplomacy through the microblog Weibo Of course, Beijing’s positive response to the Moon further corroborates the argument that Chinese audiences administration’s efforts to seek dialogue and potentially are receptive to Korea’s public diplomacy only to the extent reassess THAAD deployment on grounds of its environmental tha. [...] This allows us to conclude that public diplomacy Limits of Public Diplomacy and Soft Power: Lessons from the THAAD Dispute for South Korea’s Foreign Policy 8 ACADEMIC PAPER SERIES is functional to further the national interest and support by the Moon government that it was willing to rebuild the policy objectives only in the absence of security contentions, Sino-Korean relationship, combined with. [...] While this monograph is part of the overall program of the Korea Economic Institute of America endorsed by its Officers, Board of Directors, and Advisory Council, its contents do not necessarily reflect the views of individual members of the Board or of the Advisory Council.

Pages
13