Read the following passage and answer question.
One of the problems in the recent years is that the concept of public diplomacy is increasingly undergoing rapid changes in view of the new changes in world politics. Hence, public diplomacy assumes new forms of its use in the world politics. The proposition is that the link between the public and the practice of diplomacy embraces distinctive elements. On the one hand, there is the thread of democratic accountability, one of the changing international environments following Great War. However, the normative belief in ‘Open democracy’ whose precise definition was generally obscure, certainly did not imply an active role on the part of the ‘public’. A century and half later, the impulse towards democratic accountability had evolved into belief in the possibility of direct public involvement in diplomacy as represented by the advocates of ‘citizen summitry. The assumption of this approach is that the governments respond to external threads, but the main source of peaceful initiatives are ordinary citizens and associations. The second assumption is that globalization arguments have brought forward that intensification of social networks beyond geographical boundaries and financial markets linked the terrorist groups will play a crucial role in local and global environments. Further, the third thread in this link is technological developments, implicit in such terms as ‘cyber diplomacy’ for the evolution of diplomacy, by linking the innovations in communication and information technology to foreign policy and diplomacy. All of these developments offer opportunity for the redefinition of public diplomacy in terms of an active role for publics rather than as passive objects of government foreign policy strategies.
The growth of civil society and global social movements is changing the character of multilateral diplomacy. For example, the organization of world trade organization summit at Seattle by non-governmental organization explains the role of individuals and groups in international affairs. The impact of media has come to assume a very significant fourth thread in the public diplomacy debate that deserves separate treatment. Nevertheless, the much-debated ‘CNN effect’ in the situations of dramatic humanitarian crisis shows that the governments cannot completely, ignore the role of media in public diplomacy. A fifth thread in the public diplomacy tapestry has become the subject of increasing debate since the mid 1990s. In other words, it is the preoccupation with governments image in international politics and the possibility of states ‘rebranding’ themselves in the global market place.
Q1. Who could play an effective role in public diplomacy during the last one and half century?
(A) Governments
(B) Veteran practioners
(C) Academicians
(D) Citizens
Correct Ans: (D)
Explanation:
Citizens started playing a key role in public diplomacy over the last 150 years. Initially, diplomacy was strictly a government affair. People were seen as outsiders. However, after the Great War, that perception began to change. The idea of democratic accountability emerged. Although the term “open democracy” remained vague, it raised important questions. People wondered if the public could become part of foreign policy.
Gradually, this led to a more active form of participation. A belief formed that regular people, not just officials, could help maintain peace. This shift became clear with the rise of “citizen summitry.” That approach assumed two things. First, governments usually react to threats. Second, ordinary citizens and civil groups often start peaceful efforts.
This belief changed how people viewed diplomacy. Individuals now had the power to influence global relations. Furthermore, globalization made their efforts more effective. It allowed ideas, movements, and conversations to spread fast across countries. Because of this, citizens could connect with others globally and participate in diplomatic actions more often.
Also, digital tools and social platforms gave citizens a louder voice. They started attending global summits and campaigns. Events like the WTO protests showed their growing impact. Therefore, people were no longer passive. They became active agents of change.
In short, citizens have slowly reshaped the practice of diplomacy. Their growing involvement marks a major development in world politics. So, the correct answer is (D) Citizens.
Q2. What was the second assumption in open diplomacy after globalization argument?
(A) Social networks’ role
(B) New policy agendas
(C) Terrorist groups
(D) Financial markets
Correct Ans: (A)
Explanation:
The passage clearly outlines that globalization brought new assumptions about diplomacy. The second assumption connects directly with the rise of social networks. After globalization reshaped financial markets and cross-border interactions, scholars noticed something new. They observed how social networks became powerful diplomatic tools.
According to the passage, these networks now extend far beyond geography. People can connect across continents instantly. This expansion means that local and global issues are now deeply linked. Citizens, activists, and even terrorist groups can use these networks. Their influence shapes diplomacy, policy, and even public opinion.
This assumption reflects a shift from traditional diplomacy. In the past, diplomacy mainly happened behind closed doors. But now, diplomacy includes mass participation, thanks to digital platforms. These social networks make communication faster, wider, and more interactive. People not only consume diplomatic messages but also create and spread them.
So, this second assumption goes beyond just talking about governments or officials. It highlights how connections between people matter in international affairs. Governments must now factor in these public conversations and viral movements when making decisions. Therefore, social networks are now at the heart of modern diplomacy.
Thus, the correct answer is (A) Social networks’ role.
Q3. What was the argument for effective use of technological improvements for public diplomacy?
(A) Cyber diplomacy
(B) Information technology
(C) Foreign policy
(D) Image management
Correct Ans: (A)
Explanation:
The passage clearly shows that technological improvements have greatly influenced public diplomacy. One of the key developments mentioned is ‘cyber diplomacy’. This term captures the fusion of communication technology with foreign policy.
As the passage notes, new tools such as the internet and social media platforms allow diplomacy to go beyond traditional meetings and formal letters. Now, countries use digital channels to build relations, manage crises, and connect with foreign publics. Therefore, this digital engagement is known as cyber diplomacy.
Importantly, the argument here is that these technologies give governments and civil society groups new ways to communicate directly with people worldwide. As a result, public diplomacy becomes faster, broader, and more interactive. Instead of remaining passive recipients of information, citizens now actively participate, respond, and even shape diplomatic narratives.
Additionally, the phrase “linking the innovations in communication and information technology to foreign policy” supports this idea. It suggests that cyber tools now help define diplomatic goals and strategies. Hence, countries must adopt these tools to stay competitive on the global stage.
To sum up, the passage highlights that using technology in diplomacy isn’t just helpful—it’s essential. The correct term that defines this concept is cyber diplomacy, making (A) the right choice.
Q4. What do recent events like World Trade Organization summit suggest?
(A) NGO’s rule
(B) Multilateral diplomacy
(C) Communication technology
(D) Individual’s role in public diplomacy
Correct Ans: (B)
Explanation:
The passage mentions the World Trade Organization (WTO) summit at Seattle and the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in organizing it. This example highlights how multiple actors, including civil society groups, now actively take part in shaping global discussions.
Such collaboration points toward the growth of multilateral diplomacy, where decision-making involves not just governments but also individuals, associations, and international organizations. Hence, this move marks a clear shift from the earlier state-centric model to one that includes many stakeholders.
In particular, the summit reflects how public voices—through NGOs and other movements—can influence international affairs. Therefore, public diplomacy no longer belongs only to state actors. Instead, it reflects a broader, more democratic process. Furthermore, the phrase “changing the character of multilateral diplomacy” confirms this development.
Additionally, multilateral diplomacy aligns with the rise of global social movements. These movements use platforms like international summits to share ideas, raise concerns, and advocate for policy changes. This inclusion fosters transparency and accountability in global negotiations.
To conclude, events like the WTO summit show that diplomacy today happens on many levels. It includes different players who all shape outcomes together. As a result, (B) Multilateral diplomacy best captures this idea.
Q5. What is the last strategy in public diplomacy?
(A) New CNN effect
(B) Media as agenda-setter
(C) Policy maker-public link
(D) States rebranding themselves
Correct Ans: (D)
Explanation:
The passage clearly mentions a fifth thread in public diplomacy. This thread refers to a new focus on the image of governments in international politics. Since the mid-1990s, states have increasingly tried to rebrand themselves in the global marketplace. This means they use media, public campaigns, and global platforms to create a better and more appealing image.
This concept of rebranding draws from marketing and public relations strategies. Just as companies shape their public image to attract customers, governments now use similar methods to gain international approval, trust, and influence. So, public diplomacy becomes a tool not just for sharing policies but also for shaping global perception.
Additionally, rebranding allows states to recover from negative associations or to promote a specific national identity. This tactic becomes especially important in global competitions for tourism, trade, investment, and political alliances.
The focus on image management highlights how diplomacy today involves much more than behind-the-scenes negotiations. Now, countries actively manage how they are seen—not only by other governments but also by foreign publics.
Therefore, the correct answer is (D) States rebranding themselves, as it directly reflects the final strategy described in the passage.
