<%BANNER%>

New Paradigm of Public Diplomacy and Broadened Relationship Building: A Comparative Analysis of Foreign Governments' Web...

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101118_AAAAEO INGEST_TIME 2010-11-19T03:05:26Z PACKAGE UFE0014389_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 6353 DFID F20101118_AACRQW ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH lee_h_Page_85thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
fe6e64442b0daf47e1fb39fd8368eb9b
SHA-1
0c39e2ecdefc561addf9e201ffa610a6fcd71b1b
9899 F20101118_AACRLZ lee_h_Page_10.QC.jpg
6b7203c8ea23c2fe3362c019d74f106e
9143756a7fc947de5bfb8d818b7ee2d1258edc24
2031 F20101118_AACRJB lee_h_Page_22.txt
505fc682faf2fa2905feebdf6f17e951
b971d11ea960aca80693ca7ec17071b6a3d5b54b
64021 F20101118_AACQXG lee_h_Page_34.jpg
a283ad6bc7f1f1a421381a3c484dd8a6
ab0c78013dc98a8bd840ee4567c0898633b0b49e
1053954 F20101118_AACRED lee_h_Page_60.tif
325be8cf7e04d8c3c3689872cff0eb31
2104251493d7581cf97da63e7b61eeebba36f0d3
20398 F20101118_AACRQX lee_h_Page_86.QC.jpg
30fe21c1f9604ca3c352fe1d7f5b2271
54087acc0671e5db3441d75ea759e27592d1ea8c
1785 F20101118_AACRJC lee_h_Page_23.txt
29040d75e1a4edb77f0c38be02eeeee8
906608f96a63bb6f9510fe94967340d0eaf11439
62803 F20101118_AACQXH lee_h_Page_35.jpg
42907ee8ed143973e3eed729c890031c
3a2c142f523bb7bc84177dae080748f47d38f925
F20101118_AACREE lee_h_Page_61.tif
335cb8261c3046bec01d24c42f2ddef7
7d313ae422424733645ec4c17688a80420172031
5729 F20101118_AACRQY lee_h_Page_86thm.jpg
93aca8ea388e8640f653d6e2bda893e7
379adc0cdd95cda8dcdd95a22d0f4e36c58bd8e3
6374 F20101118_AACROA lee_h_Page_42thm.jpg
74cc06f4bc27353a312e24477da6dcfd
ea4753a81267db2cf68a5ee79e5fc41e6a5c9ac3
2240 F20101118_AACRJD lee_h_Page_24.txt
659019e182afb89d5947079c965f40a8
de3f3f8506a9353b6820070b7316799bcda29b6f
101215 F20101118_AACQXI lee_h_Page_36.jpg
3d33aec1433c9ca92e84efcd15e53115
f8f1830bd25ae48c33204512a4e712be8eb87f6a
F20101118_AACREF lee_h_Page_62.tif
d468993873bdd4cf3d26931c3aeec953
45f8871ba2287e680bf668e8be6c5fb0372962ab
5726 F20101118_AACRQZ lee_h_Page_87.QC.jpg
b2556bce0756dc9e9e49401150a6dd4e
2994cf2bdfec0275555dcc084e93fe44c625603c
19439 F20101118_AACROB lee_h_Page_43.QC.jpg
7ac1676c51cb6cfaaab0812f7fe92e65
a512ecf2d05ca36244bf5a033d5fbc667fbebe7e
1842 F20101118_AACRJE lee_h_Page_25.txt
db36049af2111f9c0de537490ce438b9
48d08d726fdbde2df4c825916849c6f9435b4361
51556 F20101118_AACQXJ lee_h_Page_38.jpg
74d76b50fc5ef61f62f32b907fea4f2b
c54c9fcd00cb9cfe4c483dc86ff36ec10b65c287
F20101118_AACREG lee_h_Page_63.tif
eea91990f7b067cf373e97ef73767004
8cea4234ffbba89576710991c549821196866b61
5537 F20101118_AACROC lee_h_Page_43thm.jpg
72d8061c609bdd90ceae43ddc06e829b
d8e52ed03465844bea953cd984019f77d35b70e5
62970 F20101118_AACQXK lee_h_Page_39.jpg
8d777519874d3aa74f1957dc39b8b68a
a8e62c724c352acb4f5284c361b636ee80ac36a5
F20101118_AACREH lee_h_Page_64.tif
0d8ad9eff02779789e2f76acad4d9f0d
3a7b33f2473a1a6011ee36272aeacd0dbd6c067f
17803 F20101118_AACROD lee_h_Page_44.QC.jpg
90283cbc62c38f19899d5b8caf952748
2ca58601113e0dc18e0a13d470cea0f52a5c01da
1759 F20101118_AACRJF lee_h_Page_27.txt
1d2b4719958b837edab41b93c64b428b
05fc98c3d0f3b510bcfeb897eca7931dc555d32d
68627 F20101118_AACQXL lee_h_Page_40.jpg
f5a4ba0f282373e22e980eca43f3eb0e
22a2f8d1d8d10a604ed13e5f479d10f5e9d61d8e
F20101118_AACREI lee_h_Page_65.tif
89eda3846c623812b5dd2995f4f90485
d8b8ca3366ca1f64f1fa9729d93f5b6fe7f199f0
4956 F20101118_AACROE lee_h_Page_44thm.jpg
23411fa24b23a5d2ded824c2790e8652
2d08ec98a1795be41b866cc21664d1182db0d2c6
1798 F20101118_AACRJG lee_h_Page_29.txt
67655156d5d843b8752eab17de8195ff
d5d037198afadfafcc831f7b4ec07d84698d9d88
F20101118_AACREJ lee_h_Page_66.tif
28587b42edb9dfe2f03088f5d336a87a
9ee94a7edfab02863997b0f09ae30addc1533034
75878 F20101118_AACQXM lee_h_Page_41.jpg
062872f4698e6381d96e1d4c890393c5
acd61083e27492a790cfb046042f711920d5a450
17056 F20101118_AACROF lee_h_Page_45.QC.jpg
54b497d51ff97564076c91cd3da89d01
9dcbce3c22d72af4f99ff8baee0186ac1d228c42
1923 F20101118_AACRJH lee_h_Page_30.txt
657190c6bf8634a5065875b35298f589
976f9f2dab9fac429ac12373021f27a3a0af0224
F20101118_AACREK lee_h_Page_67.tif
ef92cf54c09df3171fbf977193b21fb3
952ffc12c03a8b5c50295371eda5022599e0db3f
97448 F20101118_AACQXN lee_h_Page_42.jpg
2eb72223b5ab6b36b29354994ac9c27a
930078fc282929ae6c38574c93d68b8f35d30797
12492 F20101118_AACROG lee_h_Page_46.QC.jpg
25bfbdfd8b77072e1d0da77a2cffdf3a
6b04acc056ad31b73366646a5936296b429d68bf
2040 F20101118_AACRJI lee_h_Page_31.txt
2907d0109ce743534525e5965f5cbe71
3edcac346652298389c8b7707be433fb2a0db7f1
F20101118_AACREL lee_h_Page_68.tif
b34da7a53770a040218d809cd767762e
b2fed4138fe30736c8b44b53b4826ff934a8b464
60752 F20101118_AACQXO lee_h_Page_43.jpg
4e068ed865ea4834bb2bca0038798558
adf0fbf2215e08ada06a8673983f896ef06da03d
21928 F20101118_AACROH lee_h_Page_47.QC.jpg
7bb3d3ae01a71d3079e73fb4ff6bd858
906d771f9d3efe2b850832fe4d8e8202607f7aef
1911 F20101118_AACRJJ lee_h_Page_33.txt
51dbad304c6309b6783c6fd703d216ed
ebc8e7764ad09e05a487b5a9a00f8fa291e2eb1e
F20101118_AACREM lee_h_Page_69.tif
fd786127fbcce14f290fbe5e9058b585
1884c914ddcbb8594854bf8c3edf0f1fe5854cd3
54722 F20101118_AACQXP lee_h_Page_44.jpg
8f592f68a712e8ed881d8a4ec1d171ff
36be64b95ca96fdfa9c9b52aad9c3225157a55d2
6011 F20101118_AACROI lee_h_Page_47thm.jpg
e86a37b740344e4607489391ccaa33e5
56f28f52d934b75bf6afd914ea83c9944f3a4d86
1753 F20101118_AACRJK lee_h_Page_34.txt
a4bf4d169f16db6acc4954f8d77790bb
62a3c5fb9c210a741504bda0610aec6a96073805
F20101118_AACREN lee_h_Page_70.tif
6ffe401cdd544fa567d4130c29555a67
77414fa84d4d177122f5dd09500fc4382b7cf157
53452 F20101118_AACQXQ lee_h_Page_45.jpg
ac896f5f40caec04343dc1419737b68b
c7776c8c3217ec0ee7b1cb954678d7b11c7f118e
4363 F20101118_AACROJ lee_h_Page_48thm.jpg
029dac1963427be9ddedd59d308da563
3a686c3a6515ff11d6f41560ed4a308218d96d79
1712 F20101118_AACRJL lee_h_Page_35.txt
173ae65025da8f540f5728ee039fa397
e147c3f8240a05bc896f66caf2d83fa1409545c8
F20101118_AACREO lee_h_Page_71.tif
a839c9ae81c207a437bd402f3da10ea6
d1d089c44f67f543f8566dd0158a477d10082c6c
38345 F20101118_AACQXR lee_h_Page_46.jpg
4994c6ff0ec0166c8dd50b5f9d7fc180
8c734466b02d55ab8294bf7e9a1cb19fc2728cca
2332 F20101118_AACRJM lee_h_Page_37.txt
464a9e6f4ff95adab5cdf7850f9c73c5
e589fadd3c021bec8444b7b04950bc0e84916691
F20101118_AACREP lee_h_Page_72.tif
47d53d00156a249c49df7c16d7f14741
ff1829f444bbdee7e3e68e79ef5a8ae1fcecc82c
67416 F20101118_AACQXS lee_h_Page_47.jpg
1ab605a324be8d73e79c96f0a29ddd45
f3dd8081bf1f50450ebc7b28808565340dd39d68
14419 F20101118_AACROK lee_h_Page_49.QC.jpg
2513e089bb6dc3840dc645034371b799
f4edc706ea66a6a92948723d8bbecb670667f508
1328 F20101118_AACRJN lee_h_Page_38.txt
91c4479ed12fc838e0fc0db230e117f9
170f7f8c4456a2ef6e12a56bf5fb41666cfd954c
F20101118_AACREQ lee_h_Page_73.tif
5bb2dfc9a7020a1db8a2a3416368d7a5
18224f0c4063f0c171159ee2f75579234fadb829
39190 F20101118_AACQXT lee_h_Page_48.jpg
f1dc764b9af94ad503e22340e665152e
75592df97264162c5cb55bf9f78d66fc14594e9f
4298 F20101118_AACROL lee_h_Page_49thm.jpg
52acb90dc10f2eb1034a718d2ba96556
dd8d83c51c5d2b9508fcd06ddc4114ccd798429c
3166 F20101118_AACRJO lee_h_Page_42.txt
747dbdcfe358d8987fb7cb2ba7b629c9
df8089961ae76666dd0a7c9917c9a20b284b7f59
F20101118_AACRER lee_h_Page_74.tif
89cbb28a94f8912fdb22f9a48630948d
f0310c2769abb5ba30ba17bbab511cb382f36825
22456 F20101118_AACROM lee_h_Page_50.QC.jpg
81e2a3ec015ed44472f03877c3df3068
09e4e59f9ef8ee3559db3555527216d9f4004867
1638 F20101118_AACRJP lee_h_Page_43.txt
fc0b4673572f83051018e130ca8aac0a
08cebcd94e2a0d309b5d972593452b583738dd6a
F20101118_AACRES lee_h_Page_76.tif
4171f40f55922ffbd644a033ea905f68
f8a31dd7d8467739cf40ba686831ddac597a40b7
43908 F20101118_AACQXU lee_h_Page_49.jpg
69143d1c91514626c328a0058f54c797
2f3cfe502f9daa43b84814f4f43e4712757aaa23
5790 F20101118_AACRON lee_h_Page_50thm.jpg
cea8ec3631e739200af4aca6115a3979
de28e66cea81c04f8dbe548d5fe10d1e9dbce88e
1437 F20101118_AACRJQ lee_h_Page_44.txt
082b43a467e6ff0889ffc1b0891149b1
1c189a7af65f6713e1923e4d343b28ea9adc6f90
F20101118_AACRET lee_h_Page_77.tif
497dbe4de33dfb0a6e30167e33512e40
8956354b92aa2f76b6bf3ef5a8c7fe38f78d512f
74645 F20101118_AACQXV lee_h_Page_50.jpg
0eb583be478bb82daa8fcb97e7e6301d
4a57c99f84415e382b1120eeca3858931e7b4071
15477 F20101118_AACROO lee_h_Page_51.QC.jpg
9013c6dff6a6fc4057c887a9a6a42f77
69407282de63d84ed22d817bf7bf3fb9c241e376
1452 F20101118_AACRJR lee_h_Page_45.txt
53da0c6728532627b86bd0c557ce0bb6
9beba4c3aae6f75b367bb612b27e63369c80ba1a
F20101118_AACREU lee_h_Page_78.tif
8abd3758ec1ebf27cb34431d22686b05
b3ce0648c2c4fe21c3f490adf4d03b726dd4d2cd
47993 F20101118_AACQXW lee_h_Page_51.jpg
ac05039820246ec4d14422a462a0f942
f0d7a6aee0aee594f036e145fec1fe1fdf798d3b
4734 F20101118_AACROP lee_h_Page_52thm.jpg
4940d5e6f6303d993aaa9e4c0fb344bf
31ae4c09b9067a43e3362f7d2f32f74d9d3c1b2f
999 F20101118_AACRJS lee_h_Page_46.txt
1012877f020770aa71edafd3c1c1bde0
20fd5960425e421236f582aa493dae8dea3ea8a5
F20101118_AACREV lee_h_Page_79.tif
b302bb215d24298b61fcce8a9f545b9c
a6172b95c200a0a803c292c6790cc427bab81d1d
52057 F20101118_AACQXX lee_h_Page_52.jpg
c7eb45fcec5f81d4d5a0f56cd6daad60
0e9b77479dc7da5eb0bf45aca1916e5bdfc935bd
13775 F20101118_AACROQ lee_h_Page_53.QC.jpg
c5ec1910afa3568135abf4aa86e03e4a
09abbd4f76e0416ac833edda8fb6738cebbd2124
2058 F20101118_AACRJT lee_h_Page_47.txt
163bdd3dacfdda99388815de4c52ddff
133891564ccfa4eb38723664bf5b673c6586a538
F20101118_AACREW lee_h_Page_80.tif
0a15f56b9c60f2248c3951c995acfdc0
75e17167eb43cf96cff4df82931ec5986b554ba6
538319 F20101118_AACQVA lee_h_Page_46.jp2
6af9b8054b21be7d451ede76d2fb4440
7d8be22c7fff6e790e258c62917a0808f02beddb
40838 F20101118_AACQXY lee_h_Page_53.jpg
e9b0117530bdbfeb1bcab749e31b1e4c
44aadf40a7bdeec3f809431ab5b80b38817540a2
4111 F20101118_AACROR lee_h_Page_53thm.jpg
ced683b75ad4a7e6a2d28d9411673415
0730826de4ce01d5863fc9c6737eced3514c1105
1053 F20101118_AACRJU lee_h_Page_48.txt
2d30cced5bb78b271c98078a2affd7ef
c8e6237edb98b00010b03046b3f1437045b2999d
F20101118_AACREX lee_h_Page_81.tif
3814a82e0f4f45593670d6111dc9323d
c2f0c2f5f4770755426e080d3c4726dfd5784524
84922 F20101118_AACQVB lee_h_Page_13.jp2
6694fca4e70cf505ec479040853940ae
9fcdefdcccd4cb7f80c620c22177c135be2cbfdc
40050 F20101118_AACQXZ lee_h_Page_54.jpg
7715089d65fdd811b94bc2e13880bcb9
42da8045d5dc1aefc5913774c3af1299e9d773b4
13680 F20101118_AACROS lee_h_Page_54.QC.jpg
5c485811168fe6869a8e9ad6eeb7fdc6
3e8ead3f91e26fa7b135dfda6cabb6ed67d6c052
937 F20101118_AACRJV lee_h_Page_49.txt
dc5df491bea0271e2a447fa31702d9da
6bbc13ea6e5e7a9cf19df646576db492d29f13d6
F20101118_AACREY lee_h_Page_82.tif
3607a5538d54aeb6e5d886aca1a6c32a
0b305fe4b92ce71c4f9de04a26dd703c0a9d8924
71766 F20101118_AACQVC lee_h_Page_31.jpg
5e3fe64fa0ab21b2ec6bc1ac3db5f432
e2fd0c407d38eae0da37be37febdde88579bfd8b
4408 F20101118_AACROT lee_h_Page_54thm.jpg
48db1dc0ca7db0a11bfca79303e1532c
8534c471131e7ba0cfd237d82da5d4bc1758fdb6
2998 F20101118_AACRJW lee_h_Page_50.txt
418558ac826c08bb63912b147b3747de
ce6cefe0b69880469ca926fd066f31bd82035ec2
117055 F20101118_AACRCA lee_h_Page_85.jp2
7203371b5e40243084de1dd6eaeda1c3
dd5822b1df9e34cf8be9dd44679ab241fb3fb46c
F20101118_AACREZ lee_h_Page_83.tif
61ddd50dae598c6710b3711c89d605d0
938d1698dc91400305e2402c879ea9d9f798e0f7
585587 F20101118_AACQVD lee_h_Page_51.jp2
604655436264583f9a8263844bf341c4
8fb9333a1484f22687c14fe09c4c763f770ae0d5
13669 F20101118_AACROU lee_h_Page_55.QC.jpg
11131c308631502e940056c913604137
1aa1c07c3993bdf78dda9436fa697189aefd797a
1122 F20101118_AACRJX lee_h_Page_51.txt
fa3383ad5d18fae42aa863d3aae1ee97
e03d77afce616e6df26e5f882025b9c9e3e859d1
103770 F20101118_AACRCB lee_h_Page_86.jp2
23ba8ce8123b4cd66f45845827c0c7d6
8461ed3902793e61769299859cedbee60da9874a
101124 F20101118_AACQVE lee_h_Page_57.jp2
74e78e18950b7bb31a7e2c8ad09c7d68
23901e4355375d790eb6e2f8c9d494368915f30d
4565 F20101118_AACROV lee_h_Page_55thm.jpg
7894f9ac864f04122186a153bd10f2ff
a860f25f2081e22580fb128f4d3a4ff26af5ef6e
1654 F20101118_AACRJY lee_h_Page_52.txt
8e54303337c564ec8d6dfa4689af5ffd
85be3c9c9a1c5ee5f0efd7dc5df445624d64db61
17759 F20101118_AACRCC lee_h_Page_87.jp2
2d4c11b7bbef1438445dd3b52a750013
203349fe830cab32f879dfe76e814f8850cc8900
99472 F20101118_AACQVF lee_h_Page_62.jp2
c19f97896a63df4d8fd2a6417332df87
5e5f3494b0bef90569f35d296ef47a4f7e1860d1
25062 F20101118_AACRHA lee_h_Page_51.pro
80889af3e0652b8fb67204679da0f5b3
fbd869c05db0a11c71e1b1c48063eb9d69c0e2f7
21362 F20101118_AACROW lee_h_Page_56.QC.jpg
554141358df8e63a299b9eaa93f558f5
091b6a2d30bc19b21754ad533357d35df37c22e9
1039 F20101118_AACRJZ lee_h_Page_54.txt
e23b6bae0358c6c0ca59ea49e35df7a9
21468f4d194a845ba90b5db656c43e7f7bd1d97c
F20101118_AACRCD lee_h_Page_01.tif
b8fef695fa894871d3ca40c0c410802e
192285d65f40a1c1840f49d71a4d0775061d44d3
74014 F20101118_AACQVG lee_h_Page_81.jp2
3465d83910962d4d40de2b2963123742
386723fb9df8250bd45f195b440aa7012d05ffee
33402 F20101118_AACRHB lee_h_Page_52.pro
dd74da0ac70194bba1e02679324bf8e3
2cf18d4226bb628c0faab06aec50448746e3651c
6118 F20101118_AACROX lee_h_Page_56thm.jpg
e64d7ee133fac171148dc8d3c27dcbc4
d1efa0aed2daf10ab041c0d8bf52842a4a1aa29e
F20101118_AACRCE lee_h_Page_02.tif
39fc58dd82cf5b43031203687ecd5e78
9217821822d8f686d730d03aa28d063017c9bf9d
25271604 F20101118_AACQVH lee_h_Page_46.tif
b249286cf80d07c2bd87c8f397aac0b3
8f1c565645ea238bca6bd4e5bc644e9107b9ad26
23871 F20101118_AACRHC lee_h_Page_53.pro
55606e66c62b6a1909ce96abffa823cb
b89477be50c9b2cdae76d3df0a7ec3a699648ca8
22149 F20101118_AACROY lee_h_Page_57.QC.jpg
a004b4401a8205789adaeac822b04c23
c8739f70807bf7fec87fd92d9d90ca35d32c7114
3078 F20101118_AACRMA lee_h_Page_10thm.jpg
8a72bf9a6f1b71c2ee95c8066e11bc87
c612219a7876665b80178162ef6f06050f15133d
F20101118_AACRCF lee_h_Page_03.tif
e22c74c481be2ee0b43b8b758f515418
b2a5e680a8ef6f7d15b2d5864f567d2f6e30cb5e
6836 F20101118_AACQVI lee_h_Page_76.QC.jpg
ebd2c0c11765e21ba99422c7474f4617
68b4417150437985665f18440a12b4ccec6df649
6008 F20101118_AACROZ lee_h_Page_57thm.jpg
dc51c276bef2e5d6220856c4c22af348
8abc232c1b7df267ccde83f000697eff6c44c5e6
4912 F20101118_AACRMB lee_h_Page_11thm.jpg
f33b59e9d2e4803bfc04d59239fdcf4b
004cb8d3127fbfa3de32620f469053fc1a6ab984
F20101118_AACRCG lee_h_Page_04.tif
b035eac371bae5a52d4a52945981d94f
5b05d3aba2665b2a9615fa2caf48541aecbefb30
1874 F20101118_AACQVJ lee_h_Page_40.txt
4e996d2f157d2f50232e556bf6f59801
80cb9f1f037d109877d8bbbe74d898f68ba12db3
17933 F20101118_AACRHD lee_h_Page_54.pro
7f1e7230ed88618324b7ee97a8320e3d
ee59d40d92800a669fd32509820270f4979786ed
15612 F20101118_AACRMC lee_h_Page_12.QC.jpg
cd23909320fc0584cebec9604fcb3eb4
285a62874f8ad181123e0d330ecde8b915ed3e9b
F20101118_AACRCH lee_h_Page_05.tif
b2977c1672d3af560d039c2ae5f46cdf
7c3e55ca4500ca289e4aec8b6f3f5b5fc2d66e48
F20101118_AACQVK lee_h_Page_18.tif
b8eadcc7ee532b2b3feb893ee52808ab
18d67538f3cd79f8b62f36c247dc0976226e259d
21156 F20101118_AACRHE lee_h_Page_55.pro
eca1b36d07e6fa2ffecb3d1080ec956e
da293e01f6acddc11a6967720dc8b563a74db6b2
2049 F20101118_AACRRA lee_h_Page_87thm.jpg
50e53e4cd2c9bcbbd3d4c872fcc0221b
97a7f55c764e0613ce01c6c796407572e46cf0e8
4496 F20101118_AACRMD lee_h_Page_12thm.jpg
fc5f33488e869838e13d5c02dcf8f621
ea78524dcfea7cb30cccab1f5534c0c18b90ef45
F20101118_AACRCI lee_h_Page_06.tif
ebc3a2df7ce8bda6da024c2fd4577133
13dcd37b0585d6aba8d97e3408265b611eff9e9d
21131 F20101118_AACQVL lee_h_Page_27.QC.jpg
30a50c917c6d6bf350a31a40a3c7f148
0f2bf789907cad0b7f7cde7df60df70a6e5c9438
42398 F20101118_AACRHF lee_h_Page_56.pro
fe3247c4383c7cecaf143de8498c590d
dd6f22b4352c39ed6c0b76e88e58a43f01dee7c0
100136 F20101118_AACRRB UFE0014389_00001.mets FULL
63c14f214074fe807ed41c4bafdeba49
b976503c32d4c8d95a4da7d760b0490318e7eb3b
18586 F20101118_AACRME lee_h_Page_13.QC.jpg
b46a7b421fdcf76d847498250691de01
3bf9101cef524bbe8f51cf75fba8aec4821cc56b
F20101118_AACRCJ lee_h_Page_07.tif
fca8083c6187a9c9ba6f33fb6fe3b43a
3750ad2bc13906cec3369bcc6d2c98e82201e4a6
94017 F20101118_AACQVM lee_h_Page_50.jp2
fea6f296bc710f09a4afcb5d1164be86
ce467438357ec8123c4c05f86a966f71e8ba27b6
47245 F20101118_AACRHG lee_h_Page_57.pro
7a85aae6794a8270cf8e8628aa33aa15
9290e96fc3ca0b244ff62beeb4a7decb170aba5c
5501 F20101118_AACRMF lee_h_Page_13thm.jpg
0f077fb52f2785e52bd65aea4fb543aa
4da2c1002ccd1cd03a89f2f943d295a3896349c7
F20101118_AACRCK lee_h_Page_09.tif
1d3f4b39769f5da72e9ed236958892e6
e5cbb5f8691ba0462fb80e814f38ec4e26ff0af3
3208 F20101118_AACQVN lee_h_Page_36.txt
fbb38faa3ae37a96f76257b59b574847
d02b0d4b8bc2d0a1a068ab40431440e8f04b8cc5
46074 F20101118_AACRHH lee_h_Page_58.pro
aaeb81972cb712a40c81ae6ca2c97a2e
db23935cc1042dabe11572de73af94cd553bc779
19995 F20101118_AACRMG lee_h_Page_14.QC.jpg
ae4789b4ee8139a8b98f934a47d8390f
65ff1dd479ca4d3ff79f8d0b98c7457e08113877
F20101118_AACRCL lee_h_Page_10.tif
79d789b0ade02273522756afc59d4bc9
c848c94141640ceda08759fae3b9db63dd3210f1
F20101118_AACQVO lee_h_Page_86.tif
ff3bc01689553ad3810572c51c7812d1
35130adf4be5572b168056a0d3d35ef6ce0719ec
17560 F20101118_AACRHI lee_h_Page_60.pro
be303b9e8ee3662ffac9e10a157f1148
841d1f66a98f7e4c81de09bf9f7c43e4d8749a97
5739 F20101118_AACRMH lee_h_Page_14thm.jpg
8084100a644cd2416b70e055d442586f
3d0e72ff0f0e8660f5240b116403f1bff620904a
F20101118_AACRCM lee_h_Page_11.tif
c397f4a7534e3319cccd972f918880c1
cfdc505e8e267fe871a37a1d9027bf181de950bb
5105 F20101118_AACQVP lee_h_Page_45thm.jpg
7227ce793ba5315957c22c3df3f245e7
8137220ac7639a5dcf56ac2041308b21b5c1d761
42090 F20101118_AACRHJ lee_h_Page_61.pro
2fc3c107ade15cacc8a592717a98d07c
c498972dbd87f31a6b5a5cb8a3cc9b06105c117d
F20101118_AACRCN lee_h_Page_12.tif
95e82cfa7f185ce73b37aec7da173aef
7db58fe52f21ee20057c14ce1b84b98d91e62e2f
57589 F20101118_AACQVQ lee_h_Page_79.jpg
8d44138fe5ab4b3935a970d61746d6e6
986c901c17d3ef1bc8cc294454f8df55dd800131
45262 F20101118_AACRHK lee_h_Page_62.pro
aa0122eca8575e14d4da60c38b8e4ec6
85f61fa7817033bd0d027002d267f29b7a0d9427
20888 F20101118_AACRMI lee_h_Page_15.QC.jpg
46c34c0a5149bdd4e68d645182814191
8854b8c411aed5c6163c1c6589e1f0deaa305f23
F20101118_AACRCO lee_h_Page_13.tif
b9cfbfeaa2c821cc36e000317a97c86e
372e4cd23a5fdba6980b7b32b6f2b02606b6be3f
13086 F20101118_AACQVR lee_h_Page_48.QC.jpg
dd18af636c719544057082f5e6ce8c5b
bdad8b850be87831869e669c8ec23ecdd2fc33e1
45798 F20101118_AACRHL lee_h_Page_63.pro
f161dee93bf560c7349fc958566d7520
d74c5988f44e20c8438f24fb85b8bd4be482a314
5649 F20101118_AACRMJ lee_h_Page_15thm.jpg
2e3e4dc66b3aa85da4fb13b45921a742
1265be30471ff77299d21ce97f8c63dcc38c35d1
47820 F20101118_AACRHM lee_h_Page_64.pro
c495fcbc8656ccdc80b61404d225ce97
e22508f6a460275e45c4289c82f575be30333d2f
F20101118_AACRCP lee_h_Page_15.tif
da42d072286cc5995ccaca587c1084d3
e83a97518086cf968e826fc58e21a74201d3914b
12683 F20101118_AACRMK lee_h_Page_16.QC.jpg
35b06287277892f8c5c451aaf049140b
9256c03c0be083526416a8479fb39948df7ec380
6181 F20101118_AACQVS lee_h_Page_64thm.jpg
06dd4d73e8927b6ba6adf9c4fe12bb0d
b96e3e6934df9b0247509cd17b8dd0a189a9e795
46887 F20101118_AACRHN lee_h_Page_65.pro
f9bc75e817f192e061a9fd5027c15edf
98ab2ba60b02380eb4e1037703c30ff06c7aa423
F20101118_AACRCQ lee_h_Page_16.tif
9926d223b7cbcab4b53a09a358bdf5df
b53e81fff9b3db1b2231f69c76f5a9134b4613f0
3599 F20101118_AACRML lee_h_Page_16thm.jpg
9d58da97845bcd40d649c454b6e338f4
c0b85d4968a33493bbb2408dd17c6eadc0a28a4e
76116 F20101118_AACQVT lee_h_Page_32.jpg
b4673b8353b0b7d33f5e078a6dadfbed
4aa574e5b22ca7f9e5d2318a3a07efee5d08c726
43735 F20101118_AACRHO lee_h_Page_66.pro
bdf17bc7695e3941c7e30ff3b67a556a
6a3ef8f3fe681e91e6be80c4956808f00e24957f
F20101118_AACRCR lee_h_Page_17.tif
17e89a68810fb4bed1fdc05af223fbbf
ca32bd10063f6abed012234d853502975a0b829c
19155 F20101118_AACRMM lee_h_Page_17.QC.jpg
cc78ba8b0ddfd0fc71f71ee958dd0228
6cda23c42aa36cfb46aa043e1e6bb272eb053206
F20101118_AACQVU lee_h_Page_75.tif
cdf47841f784a037598df0cd7bc11efb
a57d90147fc619a1f88b54ff38447ee14201b3d2
39705 F20101118_AACRHP lee_h_Page_68.pro
fc23b4c358668bc10b4c47c41d4f4bfb
075ff2f13bae1adc30bfd05d241d9a0c0773a241
F20101118_AACRCS lee_h_Page_19.tif
e0c823051781e664045ac0c0500f854f
8a73d0809e5a771a6e009385da028d494ffc8231
5352 F20101118_AACRMN lee_h_Page_17thm.jpg
eb75752fecd8988e5463e000fd6472ed
3ef2fe6755b975469b030084952c2f0ba1b8d1e1
1754 F20101118_AACQVV lee_h_Page_39.txt
c8f584b2232f31b9e3e7c0fa12e474c1
b9b82a6ff15aeb8c8244af40c440876f73da14a5
47506 F20101118_AACRHQ lee_h_Page_69.pro
21f7715a991b733ab74288c474112256
c01b10eb0e0a81ec5e24bd86ff89eaa2aa593495
F20101118_AACRCT lee_h_Page_21.tif
cde0e0c3da56b570968ed6b3d870efe8
b1d2eb163416e7d0bac0c63d113749bd03e812b6
23675 F20101118_AACRMO lee_h_Page_18.QC.jpg
f36f42da6b96e0b051e11b8c0f494625
1b176ae04c29423a34de0f4353959dd9852ce8c9
5987 F20101118_AACQVW lee_h_Page_63thm.jpg
04a3184262406dab091959bbdb89ab7e
210c1ec35c5b73112c90f78f2053193aa358f0da
40344 F20101118_AACRHR lee_h_Page_70.pro
a77681e8f36b812cd4369eea77d922d5
0f054ce31928bb2d152904478ac0df0a6620539c
F20101118_AACRCU lee_h_Page_22.tif
07ec3f32a03dbbcd88e7b493ec4b4a0e
ae75c031fb3051846033e4fd50acd218a5f7d5b2
5881 F20101118_AACRMP lee_h_Page_18thm.jpg
39f710f888077f0ab647e818b99fc7d1
0ad2f13f370b3c93f210a2a7a116ebdfd98bb3e6
2197 F20101118_AACQVX lee_h_Page_32.txt
81dc279656d615aebcf58ae2f711d034
0832e2f4a4217bf531fdb7d2f746968a8aba3940
45146 F20101118_AACRHS lee_h_Page_71.pro
1ea92f5111e2ec58e70c770fd01a71fd
301c814a64daf4e1c8e0cf248f9b40215de06868
F20101118_AACRCV lee_h_Page_24.tif
88638b56720446ee827183bfbb1d67e7
e35597194b68b80827cbdb122142458fec8ef459
24363 F20101118_AACRMQ lee_h_Page_19.QC.jpg
34d0fe501c6b6bf6c14c8f475ff864b3
741fd1bf884dfd5f78ec75c83dc93e083df7a302
5074 F20101118_AACQVY lee_h_Page_79thm.jpg
4a68327e60accb7a8ff2268b58acf46a
dafb9d5212fdbcbb9162ec4e7772e864caac88d2
33989 F20101118_AACRHT lee_h_Page_72.pro
5f94476e3e4a5142bae58d3a3d0d673d
92c3771f10ca0f53fd4e95a04a92fa9213b73d22
F20101118_AACRCW lee_h_Page_25.tif
92c868f6f23e4b81be8612a0f8d62d84
3d48df5b4f238ff5a6759c52d8fe8f4116de4d69
6328 F20101118_AACRMR lee_h_Page_19thm.jpg
e028ff4b89f13f803e1cd1c2f854ed39
46b78bcfe3c5ebebcc68356aad40c462f36db0bc
75043 F20101118_AACQVZ lee_h_Page_24.jpg
bd01d9f57b6823865b746a9f1c4be687
15381165b4474bcddb5f85f3ca9823c4cd69e973
25354 F20101118_AACRHU lee_h_Page_73.pro
58139bea7ec296bd4fc69102ecd9095a
d2bc45edd26a896dd58c4df2f25d6d0c7a59bf84
F20101118_AACRCX lee_h_Page_26.tif
390ce05d6e749fa211e925309b4fc276
1c82f4eebb9a4aadd72776e57437c748acc10444
21665 F20101118_AACRMS lee_h_Page_20.QC.jpg
40a985d5730ffe4413d863eaa33f2238
5a801a9d96f020b366865084bdbc5935602c5bf3
38367 F20101118_AACRHV lee_h_Page_74.pro
9bc9dcf7498a9fd1e18329f2517bb618
69939eca2925a49b6eda191fc66111ff5cdeeed9
F20101118_AACRCY lee_h_Page_27.tif
f9c5e336de9f0502793981a465e91933
c455fb4364c048996e00bd35ce9cf25cc410576f
19795 F20101118_AACRMT lee_h_Page_21.QC.jpg
8cb675768c4c3d7df1903d17ddbfbfc5
5a69ca8de91be82ee24ec27eeb22f3780e316f4b
34416 F20101118_AACRHW lee_h_Page_75.pro
0eeb8b9c69a1e5484f01bd385005637e
5f44162cd951df1adcf520eac1f1508d76b6640b
41831 F20101118_AACQYA lee_h_Page_55.jpg
3c117e1a6ee285625c786d3f1e14fe14
52bbcce5e0bba0acce6b9d456781333d7317e6e0
96765 F20101118_AACRAA lee_h_Page_23.jp2
93c13b38c8b69215c89e301f1a867148
a8424a36249af5f37f076c7a3804404578069c46
F20101118_AACRCZ lee_h_Page_28.tif
791ab79e9f632d4aa8a1cd654bd167e1
f02b8e1fec5f7dcb6e53913184d0d719222acf52
5760 F20101118_AACRMU lee_h_Page_21thm.jpg
e61f711ba80fe36c6dd0d4e270a3df06
a104b44f199ced0a3843c1898fe6931556ca4142
9661 F20101118_AACRHX lee_h_Page_76.pro
ca40e687229fbe6ab85e82374c10799e
512bbe3cbc6b5b838f95bd16aabdf3c64c7d898d
66405 F20101118_AACQYB lee_h_Page_56.jpg
16d5cc7ebb96e9c469fe2f282c48af48
56c6094211562b7d9b1b699dea8ca2cace8a9b59
98649 F20101118_AACRAB lee_h_Page_25.jp2
149da8297bad4499edcc968515f04cd1
6101e4d1055a97c2fb22a29fc13f6201fab74363
22740 F20101118_AACRMV lee_h_Page_22.QC.jpg
caa1df525ff6b5219340510e34b7e77f
3d95d7607d1fee571602f4b65eed7ac6a1904c21
F20101118_AACRFA lee_h_Page_84.tif
bd01fb30dad27815b2bd0dbd97ad0098
7445ba49da20a164ca92afcd26bb3315c92d4373
33612 F20101118_AACRHY lee_h_Page_77.pro
a4137785a69a4c3a6831585482aea881
b20ade2f58b222659d4eeb85cbbb06ec60eb5f9a
68125 F20101118_AACQYC lee_h_Page_57.jpg
deca21cea81008420e2721b21c516a08
3206a46354bf26a42eae3b081fd355025427c348
130512 F20101118_AACRAC lee_h_Page_26.jp2
3e2a97f0e5e6c218e05da1d42724b184
015ec6b1e35cecccce85c20c4fa44ee230c6079c
6341 F20101118_AACRMW lee_h_Page_22thm.jpg
b8e50585c42e591f2a3ecae2b4a0ce64
13fe7442e1537fab9446a723cdfcc00758c8837a
43061 F20101118_AACRHZ lee_h_Page_78.pro
740f4c43035313eb084096303d4d7609
c91c70719b531745a752350532ff7cae5b04cdc0
69650 F20101118_AACQYD lee_h_Page_58.jpg
702e9480779e11136d9399ed1361ad7a
31b8c89d456f089f3aa58e811f77964d72cdc9f2
97254 F20101118_AACRAD lee_h_Page_27.jp2
7d7d87a0588e0879b9995a1b1afb2758
0834cda9b4fcd6c34c9aba3982b9b7df8e94f607
6166 F20101118_AACRMX lee_h_Page_23thm.jpg
58521a05d75b03cb38d18f9cbeb80d05
eba6757e2cfed2138f8d97afbe0b90d8e90ff2b2
F20101118_AACRFB lee_h_Page_85.tif
9272930237d95410df85bd51ab9dcc2e
855fb9bcf107e4dda92680d51ab15ccc177c87ba
64219 F20101118_AACQYE lee_h_Page_59.jpg
dc2edfe1529f2488ea74d744b8af70ce
7882c2132fbb5077c43be99dfc279c0e3926a935
99061 F20101118_AACRAE lee_h_Page_28.jp2
885f9e2444995440dede2f0d669df514
e521a47804a0787dd0002c463ab9105a50509915
21427 F20101118_AACRMY lee_h_Page_25.QC.jpg
2aa837f1b48bf4fd4ae70bc1f42d4b6e
643a354c685aa9f18f4a1203ff9e18b016557afd
988 F20101118_AACRKA lee_h_Page_55.txt
c91becfdacb666111b1c1dd0fee0020e
82af026f76ed9b1256262c6f7b42de07fcbb93ba
F20101118_AACRFC lee_h_Page_87.tif
5a8a98ad8b712228c24c3e85f20764c0
25d47d348f448eb95ff09aab191d2f1c9ca185a4
31982 F20101118_AACQYF lee_h_Page_60.jpg
2a1ace115a5271311284493789efb56b
fcb75b5d5b3835c91d5efa0317fa03b7906210ae
104072 F20101118_AACRAF lee_h_Page_30.jp2
742510c31cc26611e7745ea68a91ea68
e2c61c8ac2b92871f3be45c85fb5c83e4ff77652
5855 F20101118_AACRMZ lee_h_Page_27thm.jpg
a4d5482d4895ecb9b0b5d3433e0b208f
d4ef7562a179b4530a8707a0397dcc238b9d1767
2014 F20101118_AACRKB lee_h_Page_56.txt
6e8f2e2dee8f8ad567e45c0c4fc4f0a4
60de8dd4652a7dadd2a3e820171a9b90203e989e
9632 F20101118_AACRFD lee_h_Page_01.pro
012a1e6025614cc279c0a4e3655a4edc
b4c86b9fb41a34157b35aa6f51e7477bdfdd8690
63500 F20101118_AACQYG lee_h_Page_61.jpg
f58553393269dda4e25cdbe40c7a60cb
244cab662433726be7958fa85bbff08fe90384bf
108901 F20101118_AACRAG lee_h_Page_31.jp2
da2fc5a9ffdf6eae078cec2de9f1c57d
228b11a8d60234ea4c66efc2e017fc0928f5434d
1895 F20101118_AACRKC lee_h_Page_57.txt
787a7072e531a4e96e7a2d93cc18e834
843f8500c1f5d24cd78dbe6a6cbbd561ff4994f5
1118 F20101118_AACRFE lee_h_Page_02.pro
e3557d31ba28850c88193aa3101f68a9
a43c99d07b2942eed8b336e7b728d16fb423284a
67426 F20101118_AACQYH lee_h_Page_62.jpg
87d15c7324f8c2904b753dfc641a555f
f6f85d7be8314833877c43cbc7087cd6b3492e7a
112985 F20101118_AACRAH lee_h_Page_32.jp2
23d230356d3e23e66c9092995e3bad5f
1df1923610e32330960002ae992b8275e953a9c3
21945 F20101118_AACRPA lee_h_Page_58.QC.jpg
9fc158a295f9fc72c87bcfe29e645d17
40c79f22809a74c79f97ca096df2cc667193fad9
2160 F20101118_AACRKD lee_h_Page_58.txt
c9d0201b5d46e63f17efbb2ca49d37bf
c909253669e5bc80fe38818c0735310099242209
4732 F20101118_AACRFF lee_h_Page_03.pro
fec8fcf6a51aabc268f143b2a8ae540a
e7cfbc8a4b786bc46fee9ce50ba08b2e0696c78a
67186 F20101118_AACQYI lee_h_Page_63.jpg
59aad70368d641b40fea3b99ff54bdfc
4d344be14951297b074a00af1686724beb809d85
104930 F20101118_AACRAI lee_h_Page_33.jp2
37ec84048a4b4f434cbe401b9ce1570a
dfb6be3db2b7c641585639b1f8501167c6260280
6186 F20101118_AACRPB lee_h_Page_58thm.jpg
25d238ef468c8ed9c459a3ae133295f7
0960ff991fc771bf8963ada54629433fd5f60404
1770 F20101118_AACRKE lee_h_Page_59.txt
561e8cc777d15ef6925881407b9f5fae
26c363ff4a7f51d9316571c9094ccbd17f3d61d2
39140 F20101118_AACRFG lee_h_Page_04.pro
d89ddfa0f48570d739fac25a6636b287
dff8c71c920ce4b9eefbc397c09cdc52cb24e93f
68796 F20101118_AACQYJ lee_h_Page_64.jpg
dbbc6de3ff3b90ec1860ec38296df290
1a37360e627c9c64784e7604a3103f49834d5499
94008 F20101118_AACRAJ lee_h_Page_34.jp2
0fe77e22ef4ba50bbb26f6898764d5f3
901da647c01b2acab8f1eeab9b88c3cfa9b9b85f
4918 F20101118_AACQTM lee_h_Page_51thm.jpg
f8fece2b03283a5c392599da788272e6
60107efbb76cdd528af5dc819e2acfc38fb89d19
20922 F20101118_AACRPC lee_h_Page_59.QC.jpg
124d30b0276b83b1e5ae7d7114aa72bb
493224a0190623f4f685a2a165b4d4d7657cfda5
1725 F20101118_AACRKF lee_h_Page_61.txt
4e81a614a16961885c1b0c485b79b03f
37c8249a25dc716e741e6408defb2495be829c8f
42188 F20101118_AACRFH lee_h_Page_05.pro
6a008b4e91c035b710f895aac1a7c383
07ceb057b07816721405de0a9c39f96eb9c6f546
66730 F20101118_AACQYK lee_h_Page_65.jpg
47a2d06486e483b8fdfa612c05e725b0
80e14550fdb9fd55301c8f2791f3829a1ea92ec8
94831 F20101118_AACRAK lee_h_Page_35.jp2
d513ce4c1a9fbd35dd617e7a3d6ec23d
804dacdb966438cf2410178ab7e43ae9df3558ba
42885 F20101118_AACQTN lee_h_Page_59.pro
bf7985513ea323ad3b442c49e3b9f54f
eeda465e3d88b6ca341d24421b4cdf2c8566e1d8
5905 F20101118_AACRPD lee_h_Page_59thm.jpg
d38a514ca922f6c1143b85bc15c301eb
426653bf29de0cba39ba51f93452bc28167eec40
13216 F20101118_AACRFI lee_h_Page_06.pro
b0442e7392304108c1288ab0893cd7e6
d0020e47b0a0cfb9fea6aca88e50818bb7c1837f
63801 F20101118_AACQYL lee_h_Page_66.jpg
9992f9f4b78eed3a75f246869cbdc813
5eecdf5ecf723bbb1448aaecf90769b89ef79172
152778 F20101118_AACRAL lee_h_Page_36.jp2
05a6794dd6db85ce67b1bc745ae705e6
67637802c9ad32c6edd135f5d5afc64125f158e2
5981 F20101118_AACQTO lee_h_Page_20thm.jpg
e94a52de96c032ac37faa7f15b822bbd
d1d72e15c1687c1a73a7fd06f5ef76e9c7f25c8a
10392 F20101118_AACRPE lee_h_Page_60.QC.jpg
1ad4c1a42b29619ad8d1031b77f0c8de
d841eccbecf966ae9c6694157e009d35f0de0e64
1787 F20101118_AACRKG lee_h_Page_62.txt
c5a2d719945130b5f089b0a6a51be51c
c424d0f04c9b2eb0bb924813e4cf4ab07cd6507a
72318 F20101118_AACRFJ lee_h_Page_07.pro
8359937251ab08984750559ab28d45b6
dc5076f24882335f3134b24d68895ca8e3c023c5
68073 F20101118_AACQYM lee_h_Page_67.jpg
67f2aa0bf530eff98264d32635550bbd
7ef619888b35e02fa2a8f651f60645977396f542
115195 F20101118_AACRAM lee_h_Page_37.jp2
13a639840e50e8e82141c902f66909e0
3d6bdbd832c09c9ebbe0a2106bb5d27c6eb0ee7d
2627 F20101118_AACQTP lee_h_Page_26.txt
ce2b14d9ffc9d3dc5cd8ef6d194374dc
47ea16ddce033b7fadf2cb9e18e7d6d797e0409b
3329 F20101118_AACRPF lee_h_Page_60thm.jpg
084b338c574f002096761a81000469d9
b031620bdc503c87a38a989e96b821a4ec48c6cf
1823 F20101118_AACRKH lee_h_Page_63.txt
8bd6c14daea6f44b33237cb7e8edcc38
4c10ce028fd278717ef8a11ae82786671249939f
45470 F20101118_AACRFK lee_h_Page_08.pro
2fdf3580d1b808d73ad9b5477c710645
6959d728408b9ae793e6d06e30a26bd90929dbad
58613 F20101118_AACQYN lee_h_Page_68.jpg
89ce5ef49477953bd15e4244de04a14d
f827255dc14c17a812aa776070effb8d03bdb2e1
75010 F20101118_AACRAN lee_h_Page_38.jp2
247ecc71e6a4ecde7ac129e728629e4d
f47d704d6eb0a612c206f68c054bd25b73385aa3
20838 F20101118_AACRPG lee_h_Page_61.QC.jpg
374bd34b807ec952fef39de10b7ddb14
de05038c33557f2aa34086be051c5f9bb6860c50
1882 F20101118_AACRKI lee_h_Page_64.txt
1fb7410f1b4f24221b5ccbfd5af2d615
f33f0d0ec93ce45c10bf7313610dd7b0c1878b9a
67859 F20101118_AACQYO lee_h_Page_69.jpg
39641144926bd171204175201eb9a7ea
4205ae45b7617a0eecbbd8eab1db447fa48a0f61
93050 F20101118_AACRAO lee_h_Page_39.jp2
96148afbfcca14cee367c629c0e8435a
16ef45037d2da4d393815882cbf694fe539678ce
5903 F20101118_AACQTQ lee_h_Page_24thm.jpg
ae0d518ce3495dad284153a4559a22bb
536dd4b788e08205b9d0affd648d319027bcf43a
31552 F20101118_AACRFL lee_h_Page_09.pro
2f0b14fbb20b53ac9c966c5841eddec4
e8240c93726be506f4b3d22070962552e8d61f8a
5759 F20101118_AACRPH lee_h_Page_61thm.jpg
3b4be15a736d0c216b0093f73bfe3b83
a148bc658ff137ddb401fa3a3ad360cb98549908
1845 F20101118_AACRKJ lee_h_Page_65.txt
d95ae1399eeb758bf08f0fbd6d87608d
929e13684ad1b8d0cb73a56bd9237ff8abdf621c
58458 F20101118_AACQYP lee_h_Page_70.jpg
8f20a2082598aa38b01c61ef42e2092c
7ea6ca46152dde1cf4d41bf99506958e39dabbc8
104238 F20101118_AACRAP lee_h_Page_40.jp2
d02560d24d721774f2d81f8295dea765
3803165d3c27608a9445b0dc0e383e5969f8f030
102309 F20101118_AACQTR lee_h_Page_64.jp2
38453446af064b0f47e18fe9b7fc035e
b0c538700aecfd8217dbfa615828452fb4b3b969
19977 F20101118_AACRFM lee_h_Page_10.pro
bbbf0222528227d4b99204fc93a5eba7
571b06d3393678840430a1933a998b63c79aea66
21757 F20101118_AACRPI lee_h_Page_62.QC.jpg
d102a192dab4f9e82485947239cd81e0
453cd8d60b257eb242ffeb1c664059c502d02717
1730 F20101118_AACRKK lee_h_Page_66.txt
e2f2bee45d355c83c4cb1f1aa74e468c
f61425016d5d328d5287a2cea48e10cdb2004e92
65161 F20101118_AACQYQ lee_h_Page_71.jpg
96e9c696e5bd0d373eb7410535446711
173f97d63f5ef056e547ca4b7d3aad37234c8bb6
112047 F20101118_AACRAQ lee_h_Page_41.jp2
cc81678daf510c4eae83fa7578b6a448
08e3d3aa58b6c1206fc7e5c11cdc552015007d24
F20101118_AACQTS lee_h_Page_23.tif
f765101c50b7f89f6dfb75016b6aa2e4
f66f1bdd29b1cca0e214f077731b6d15874e5d93
36341 F20101118_AACRFN lee_h_Page_11.pro
c30a4eec86f6aa36e6ae83b8fd3940e4
08dab11dc85d2787da8796e7e36c37119582318c
6137 F20101118_AACRPJ lee_h_Page_62thm.jpg
94c6c3c7a1fe19538ce1155a03ca9284
50470e2a6cb2e53c445d1efd73243a7a311883c2
1890 F20101118_AACRKL lee_h_Page_67.txt
ef0cbaea6286554d18ed8ef92933b75c
3ed4222a33796450f5166e1f6f1521283a4ebe21
51510 F20101118_AACQYR lee_h_Page_72.jpg
cdb6fce21da15678f663fa6e55e6def3
ca945c2588c404df823fc48e1e357b9580224203
148044 F20101118_AACRAR lee_h_Page_42.jp2
f5fa32719860a618e0cf88646ad8ca2f
de9712fd3848db5c8eb164da17706ac3f47b9a70
1860 F20101118_AACQTT lee_h_Page_28.txt
8cfa0e9f9e86c20f5d9db957cb889451
f204ff766da39b7289595c084e38eacfbaebc79c
30887 F20101118_AACRFO lee_h_Page_12.pro
e752667514a5059408a23eff6f2a1751
1290347dc638801c5fa45a07fd912de019eab644
22191 F20101118_AACRPK lee_h_Page_63.QC.jpg
5a9f90a32ce0b3d0a96306866544ef20
ffe109616c6ad0dffc5480362547e91f06ee87b0
1586 F20101118_AACRKM lee_h_Page_68.txt
4f0cdb1b5b685c68a4c2b0b798089cc0
963d04ee052b21608282341a26835f37cb343382
41011 F20101118_AACQYS lee_h_Page_73.jpg
4ac6a2301714643b0ca884984d924f47
bb91a4251d9f833722f4c0c73910e3951d3f86a8
88790 F20101118_AACRAS lee_h_Page_43.jp2
8e9af9e04c40d32533c7e727e335e32b
d52f92e7ddce9004c8dec5b8c3c4e9a5c27879da
F20101118_AACQTU lee_h_Page_14.tif
09bafa4ba333c585452b11afcb449a1c
177192f7b6c6bc61aa9adbd18df639442fd6f8ff
39608 F20101118_AACRFP lee_h_Page_13.pro
8f77160933c247a0542e43b0d7b54d88
ae5975bf5b3a7327b401d703756a72810dbf7624
F20101118_AACRKN lee_h_Page_69.txt
051b74c0a1d2d64fabb2efca2aad644f
becbeb8dcb0fed4a8ec72d40fde0121ba48e32e3
57414 F20101118_AACQYT lee_h_Page_74.jpg
7226d4f0c57f20fac30e83c8df320ba5
4ca713fb5ceddeeb8e122347ece44735244e374d
79462 F20101118_AACRAT lee_h_Page_44.jp2
c3325df552b29021ab90e6f77bf8bc4f
b00c52a37dc8a1553ce51f7055db9565f0609b10
23668 F20101118_AACQTV lee_h_Page_26.QC.jpg
645b87f7a2558269f7de3a6161f12cab
8317f0998a9b9f5c2c7ea7fbd0c65a0bd0828e15
41467 F20101118_AACRFQ lee_h_Page_14.pro
4b5ac39e1702d979313bfb493ae44250
7e5deda7ef25ede92d76d97731dcdf122b335528
22157 F20101118_AACRPL lee_h_Page_64.QC.jpg
0acb29b33cc5212fa50694debef8ee2c
be1e8c96afcc8bea33100e83c415c744f6720fd0
F20101118_AACRKO lee_h_Page_70.txt
96892a50526272db70071424640c176d
9743995a169bedb9caa1b3632a37ebf926cc3eaa
51452 F20101118_AACQYU lee_h_Page_75.jpg
8e0fd38cf7d538872ea7a55bd3716087
c236c0d1eb79aed87a2aa260d953b6f1c4a8470b
77426 F20101118_AACRAU lee_h_Page_45.jp2
30c6b326c27768e6b1b2a49dc7f9c56a
c0190c23cb7d9480482443356f0867c2c027712d
10291 F20101118_AACQTW lee_h_Page_02.jpg
d3d1862cfdbb97bb00c7fc96b5710c92
c2d31178aafa009b78349887e2ad4f2765d041f7
47181 F20101118_AACRFR lee_h_Page_15.pro
b9d0bcb30e96d8dca3e9a9eb9cca7a8b
e6694a975dfb4e1c9497f7ae913da8fe29b67a26
21776 F20101118_AACRPM lee_h_Page_65.QC.jpg
e9b2438827809562d0e63b14e30fbf20
3cb3e6bac0964886674f3616983d350714a03df7
1812 F20101118_AACRKP lee_h_Page_71.txt
78745e95ea2fc9bdcf0a472e4e330803
2eab23dc3f97078661c39cd79cb2acb325d2d190
90437 F20101118_AACRAV lee_h_Page_47.jp2
5536fa1d2a0d38082a66b22906d2a376
ee813a0987a484c85a7f49709cfbe54dc1576724
16991 F20101118_AACQTX lee_h_Page_52.QC.jpg
add5905e4c9a9a331fcdff39009e38de
126739c1e8069474000939fa04b0e82efede7635
22938 F20101118_AACRFS lee_h_Page_16.pro
06234993f7f2da99de131cafdbe0a9d0
b89c7838ac99001c2239d185cbeae886dbc122e7
6017 F20101118_AACRPN lee_h_Page_65thm.jpg
69cf68a70b8fccff163f41812c7ac29a
f96b2cce83910879879ca70e47a81636f1b1226f
1369 F20101118_AACRKQ lee_h_Page_72.txt
197889fa86cfc65dd2a3e1b326a9bc65
04d6bef313bba80b5938cd3e1560c8c1b8c3fdf2
20630 F20101118_AACQYV lee_h_Page_76.jpg
407491d2a6332dd812adfffe83653945
5979c317d7e42faed082adc074933f1aeddeede1
543750 F20101118_AACRAW lee_h_Page_48.jp2
64e434e8de083026b0aa37b2d805d66b
145f65e6aa37751c437c81df4a268a9af5168257
34995 F20101118_AACQTY lee_h_Page_81.pro
323e8448b137a74e89ed240eaef3799f
5158fda46d3bba01acf0baf45adab92c35cbebf5
41765 F20101118_AACRFT lee_h_Page_17.pro
0d4bdd4a7a0d1cc012883e69fca35b5a
3a21104307933e7258513575d2edc304a2e5506f
20588 F20101118_AACRPO lee_h_Page_66.QC.jpg
69250697c2302985b8732ba4acdaf5eb
92c0392e84e3d53f150fe3be52b8a0d1a739d008
1116 F20101118_AACRKR lee_h_Page_73.txt
d81a8987f9ff0ceff99f72aa79c5802b
13b622c17d162167a527bdbaadb98c3b53a51542
51939 F20101118_AACQYW lee_h_Page_77.jpg
83d90bc752e27c31764fe00b39a26beb
5936970336bf190cb470c0efca50dd9d6d3504fb
510129 F20101118_AACRAX lee_h_Page_49.jp2
ab8326cbd409fb7c1bdec9413e5e7c22
9a1a669c717ab500ed84d41dc832a59d7924779b
93138 F20101118_AACQTZ lee_h_Page_58.jp2
400e7c9310ef8f3ec9d802a565a18e48
34f624ff18d36f98bd953b090ba96fa9a18275b9
60679 F20101118_AACRFU lee_h_Page_18.pro
28eb7c21eb0dfd728015ea86013b3546
3f890f1537f54736e8e0ef93bbcc226a3bbca025
5836 F20101118_AACRPP lee_h_Page_66thm.jpg
b4971a076c5ca94942fddbe9b0204488
cd6a16e3becbd86fc934af7c9e1f25d47b24034f
1553 F20101118_AACRKS lee_h_Page_74.txt
5d57e676e1a9acadcb458ba4e48c7929
1a74ac4991e25f1d73b7146abbc05fdb13888d59
63606 F20101118_AACQYX lee_h_Page_78.jpg
425948bec257b3bae3d4e7de0a3ba071
352bf95dbf216a8173b1dd84f175789d2791fac8
66932 F20101118_AACRAY lee_h_Page_52.jp2
6784c561c6d95ef41cebc799d803882f
0bf4c0bf1b2e1087b28fc339d2744fd3c828fdcf
62705 F20101118_AACRFV lee_h_Page_19.pro
d44b2c2f118ee117c6fd914b519c180c
990aad3d73119ae5278368c4ede4277fe5977353
21862 F20101118_AACRPQ lee_h_Page_67.QC.jpg
124d65f3300439064aadd0c73efabf40
14ae9f9cfc20cce67dfa652c659dbb1ddcbc5a1c
1404 F20101118_AACRKT lee_h_Page_75.txt
d339833b67c9cdc97549c453d0ffd5f4
83d920868e28438111aa11bfe92683741f0d572b
74188 F20101118_AACQYY lee_h_Page_80.jpg
9182598211984eb7d597dec7a97c7064
318f7e0d017ec25e2bc286a63f502e8c03873c59
463339 F20101118_AACRAZ lee_h_Page_53.jp2
decb0254a8d51d538948d19a08a2fe0c
4709634acb91bc274d3c7efe884b03b21220c50a
45910 F20101118_AACRFW lee_h_Page_20.pro
e4e9edb21e05fec7d185171a0a5fdf34
281270a71d39fc19f7a22acbd6a58ff5c3ed86a5
129453 F20101118_AACQWA UFE0014389_00001.xml
020ae3f7f5fc5e974fc3ca8df7af4e4f
e96c0d650fc1ec7301dfdab37a2f3542222aa999
19215 F20101118_AACRPR lee_h_Page_68.QC.jpg
a0abc5cb9d4723824abcc53819401cbd
da40aa1f4141ccbdc3d2cb4178806d9abb59b8f8
435 F20101118_AACRKU lee_h_Page_76.txt
1bac80b5877cbdcb0d63367cbd527eac
a7653fdd09c3a987a7c153080940a3a7d1a405de
54253 F20101118_AACQYZ lee_h_Page_81.jpg
8b8cb5e8e3b556f000175f5e01511a3c
b6caf6275efecdd8adf2f33b0fc4897af0d85ce7
42073 F20101118_AACRFX lee_h_Page_21.pro
0907679f3454c2fa6c9e1e5259a5a5cd
7a9374612c9e278ab1e308947ff7e0f2c7919393
5391 F20101118_AACRPS lee_h_Page_68thm.jpg
9f4e65c23fd788937d14eae4521395df
64d9a214c2c6b27064b36a8f929366117e1a7276
1383 F20101118_AACRKV lee_h_Page_77.txt
9b0ec8b59ac7285ef7e23c28cbb456b9
751f8c9ab72a24198dbfcf68f319b9eae6e343ec
50539 F20101118_AACRFY lee_h_Page_22.pro
64ddb83ef81266563a2d3a6b4dfa29de
19619795e187bc12f4b6982026d845867e505cb3
22060 F20101118_AACRPT lee_h_Page_69.QC.jpg
70eeaf1b710eb0a50367a8e4c311f9f1
b1b92b0a515afdb2d6791c81039193bf9ce7e00e
1701 F20101118_AACRKW lee_h_Page_78.txt
91c6d7773996f10a19590b2e88991d13
101e7c3d43256ed8c32ba1e69b170cbcee184a53
F20101118_AACRDA lee_h_Page_29.tif
c2658ff6d518816f890e0e24b71f7a11
9db1d2b310e0c2e37ac10e45164718d735a191c2
44416 F20101118_AACRFZ lee_h_Page_23.pro
b0ba6d34b577694e0378459df743418e
6319068e9a5f8fc7a6b7c1c6eb79e926de983466
26243 F20101118_AACQWD lee_h_Page_01.jpg
bc80ba6d0800db6cd61b2e1a4a1aba12
9380ff35d73672eeeab91fac00a969ff423fe7e8
6077 F20101118_AACRPU lee_h_Page_69thm.jpg
dabdc706ced5875a341bd080828d65c8
7664c5d0a7db3efe21e00ab90ca9a361680903b2
1691 F20101118_AACRKX lee_h_Page_79.txt
33b909c54ced2ed237cbb7c69edbaf0e
c0849afd97402aaa3d25b07918117367c9de8e5b
F20101118_AACRDB lee_h_Page_30.tif
0d342b780e7e2f3cf129f9740a520da9
e0fcff5de4fcd072aac4b96a14015a38e52a4556
15130 F20101118_AACQWE lee_h_Page_03.jpg
f4ad84290b67ef2b8d607755f44835b9
7b307ff58696ff1b5e9a47fbfbc8fff664358c38
19010 F20101118_AACRPV lee_h_Page_70.QC.jpg
5cb388da56e056116328715b69356c94
189cde7d2aaa2862ce8364a1d38e944b60ebde0b
2383 F20101118_AACRKY lee_h_Page_80.txt
8e480b2c9ee773b47377331033f0b293
f37ff72e78e601b5327ae57e3caa0189b87b91d6
37075 F20101118_AACRIA lee_h_Page_79.pro
ca23bc87adae298d45a86586a5345e8e
39eeace3868628c7a0d7a89fffb0609c8a9572eb
F20101118_AACRDC lee_h_Page_31.tif
b8c7d18e0f4c38fb34bc3cb008f66eac
24e1c32977ff2cab54a11fab511ffb2ced7b25df
59622 F20101118_AACQWF lee_h_Page_04.jpg
cdc0fadba7387ab7d152a98fbbd14d4f
7e0d608a9d11e966eda4e5ce5a99f030f7799c98
5771 F20101118_AACRPW lee_h_Page_70thm.jpg
f2ec5072e6ccba5a3e5f9acdb26d2018
e106a8c271c2f0509085463c8232edf425e128bd
1507 F20101118_AACRKZ lee_h_Page_81.txt
6232208a50437b928babe62730d6eebe
0d3d2b28a8c94f999c43ca1f68ac510e24cda9fd
47672 F20101118_AACRIB lee_h_Page_80.pro
36bf918cff47771b611cee6a2287a8c6
134a7423600b5656d621764200800e64a13aaa63
F20101118_AACRDD lee_h_Page_32.tif
4d35eb31d39e76a5ab84ada18f6d39da
00e19b039d7e44b4be6ac34cce3343780d7953c1
63837 F20101118_AACQWG lee_h_Page_05.jpg
7d0d68ddd69b5d242ef2daa1ed3087d7
8f1ae9ae6b5fd5bc72e2a5f48fae1011ec6d5213
21324 F20101118_AACRPX lee_h_Page_71.QC.jpg
ed4bdc597f3d39f20eeab19ff14438c0
d66e6b66fa9d03754c907e6e0c1baf6c1174c71c
46822 F20101118_AACRIC lee_h_Page_82.pro
96f5c516100c09d418b07081ac7c4172
f0c28e746736eacf9d7bc45c0d43afc55f2c79f4
F20101118_AACRDE lee_h_Page_33.tif
6efb00204c8664545ed67abe8b8672e7
42a89a6e019a8e01ec20d314ddab9063f70d48f9
24872 F20101118_AACQWH lee_h_Page_06.jpg
16ad34bc95d4a914ed88921741818d4d
e5993c27ca391c5d299dcb095229d81c5f4098d3
5845 F20101118_AACRPY lee_h_Page_71thm.jpg
e2b8c7025bd0827b82a0360f58401579
ea3c213ad8a835f525bf013b0425f259da425347
22102 F20101118_AACRNA lee_h_Page_28.QC.jpg
f2f8c17b898ee9f965123abc9e1937d0
aeddc952c555bfe69204c246be006f8bcf3d47a1
53634 F20101118_AACRID lee_h_Page_83.pro
e249fec1fde5fba625e99f6a8274e4f1
e6953708ffba0161a19d8e0586f2fa4617f72115
F20101118_AACRDF lee_h_Page_34.tif
1c25f9e88b3e0461ab144392a644c916
4fad7b3bcd6bfa1a8a921fdcb9c2347666af7ce3
66665 F20101118_AACQWI lee_h_Page_07.jpg
8103ed024fa0ae1f83fd81cccb8b2f0d
846400a3c3032f1b236634c8967c532a29474882
16860 F20101118_AACRPZ lee_h_Page_72.QC.jpg
c2820ca562b22f78f81cce9880d93aae
aec77ed3d461c6e0ac75a3ba8b0ba37d932d92c2
6049 F20101118_AACRNB lee_h_Page_28thm.jpg
7a43988a396944413466eb4d47eafa9b
9ecf2367578ea9475b77701b96391e6a6cc3042b
F20101118_AACRDG lee_h_Page_35.tif
9fc51e6b3a663d8c7e84bbb8900bee36
fd2714f8d7a7b53e0c1730dc0354b53a57dabde8
48376 F20101118_AACQWJ lee_h_Page_08.jpg
a1263b3f4f8ab5fe21e4e22dcf04d12b
b6e62910b3b33f6cbc3576b2561043078c335915
21553 F20101118_AACRNC lee_h_Page_29.QC.jpg
f3903c27ea96ce3868d03eba7428258c
73c69ac4deeb8515c676e3096152eb9eb826d1e8
57153 F20101118_AACRIE lee_h_Page_84.pro
a5fc1146f4133c5fbc7cd13bc9429ce8
02f5b34de3bf62b02455bd2ceccaf97b373fb959
F20101118_AACRDH lee_h_Page_36.tif
80b8755f57fd72903916936abc9659a3
cec603475d799e22d2f0b528be226d25a9228760
41729 F20101118_AACQWK lee_h_Page_09.jpg
db51e7e0ec36fb1c784dbbb6dd4d98c0
d00b2209be1ab3f5bd7e96c6ea1d2df0a9bf5401
22051 F20101118_AACRND lee_h_Page_30.QC.jpg
664c98f0c81888df452c8f866b1effc3
227859d0f54d6b0eabd3f8d197030ef6211a26fd
52556 F20101118_AACRIF lee_h_Page_85.pro
7fe73efbe4c992e164c7621a4ad11db6
e668f9fade57332413ecdcb9f65fb5ef4f58f7e7
F20101118_AACRDI lee_h_Page_37.tif
acf6caca6e06a1ee31573708176709d3
828dc86e1fe53685d45ca68c3359f57c8c0c402e
32476 F20101118_AACQWL lee_h_Page_10.jpg
ed7a2967e0dd14d98900bd3fb44ac767
6da81b0e92d6b54a7c6f59b3f831ac67164ab27f
6076 F20101118_AACRNE lee_h_Page_30thm.jpg
372781eeae2a545f463a8b7fa4b162c1
fe3d7bb19ff5a15c66077e8e7eba19b06f57cec0
46017 F20101118_AACRIG lee_h_Page_86.pro
a44b3072a02489a3240a38ca780e7869
a1995be78393e02f43f18bdff2dc9e0c20ca5804
F20101118_AACRDJ lee_h_Page_38.tif
fef0a6f9d9ab90aba7df7d2914b3112e
faadd7caa4f93c1b3ba02a29fa286636703be38c
57422 F20101118_AACQWM lee_h_Page_11.jpg
b56cd059268c594c8514f4f6a9b521e4
73bf3b5786bd043855e6f1f780db088e6b2051bf
22608 F20101118_AACRNF lee_h_Page_31.QC.jpg
f8762f9998e99532ef99e331c9bd827a
4d81cf39e85f4e39e4eeac08eb89d012fda1b2b1
F20101118_AACRDK lee_h_Page_39.tif
19a1a1c33e5ccd4cc9fae54341c7466e
8e580dbb6ee6dfdc56f9e4aec9e557fc8848a7f9
47308 F20101118_AACQWN lee_h_Page_12.jpg
e0e21ed44ffdd72f2eeb43011ea11628
41690ef4ea94f922c79579c29786166b624c8026
6567 F20101118_AACRIH lee_h_Page_87.pro
c33239c5741772105c4d9d5bff9fac51
a8e197975ec974f8ea82f9b66e3a1a95a10f9d8c
6285 F20101118_AACRNG lee_h_Page_31thm.jpg
27935d82cc76b9b3f6d7887814bfca97
32005993f079acb797ac394db0975be73e1d719b
F20101118_AACRDL lee_h_Page_40.tif
a17c154766ff8974dd84fe3127f2be4d
00a29e9850aaf9968d41f31b1a675bd7e3ae12a7
57915 F20101118_AACQWO lee_h_Page_13.jpg
a94fae9313950735b3f564175c7ef9ed
33ddd85f95ba51c8dd4562031581d68f7698bc0a
508 F20101118_AACRII lee_h_Page_01.txt
c2ce5036edb18f24b045f1a090303e60
1486132c8c25535b61c1aedd4cf76267190b915c
22698 F20101118_AACRNH lee_h_Page_32.QC.jpg
3076b6cbb31587c9a1f1498f53656154
96a6474f97561f9d3c0955599eb9addb0f2ec4ef
F20101118_AACRDM lee_h_Page_41.tif
4aa3b6de08c44c037a9a5d9a4844e19d
7c71ebe20ba2b7f19b927baaa3c2bc167e3c9fcd
62344 F20101118_AACQWP lee_h_Page_14.jpg
c12170ca62ff0ea36acd3cfcbbcd5c8a
5caf26ca3db692d261666c0311bd1ec47e074b46
107 F20101118_AACRIJ lee_h_Page_02.txt
25f3754501330638aec2ab79c0047e7f
8acc69f2af7d1d50dcf4f04b2392e26e8c65ba33
22870 F20101118_AACRNI lee_h_Page_33.QC.jpg
3f37f3762df927f2d31206b504e1e36e
eae63e2d88a255e65d4e97025dbd0128501e2f9b
F20101118_AACRDN lee_h_Page_42.tif
72c368d2620f6855858e66f42b9ce38a
220a70dd036429bbbe10063248a593b7502f7d97
67721 F20101118_AACQWQ lee_h_Page_15.jpg
1550b4f3eb548fd451d3fdd02ecc0eb7
1cc942d65c770025837bc308b73d87af6eaadad2
274 F20101118_AACRIK lee_h_Page_03.txt
52d9721e62f7827602d38c2cfbe36c9a
bd4dac54fb089f0bd3e493ad4f13ef4f2ad6f143
F20101118_AACRDO lee_h_Page_43.tif
919e71005940f79c358895c45b9e0757
3ba357b93d0865f524e141df1849e3633f02530c
38410 F20101118_AACQWR lee_h_Page_16.jpg
022db4444922b45d1f576a5df56b63ef
b349431175b379b724824da3ab2945438dc9e1ab
1597 F20101118_AACRIL lee_h_Page_04.txt
de0eaba1bcd0512cc3b2cef8a64c910d
5b865d5941e76c1b60bc6912c29fc29f786b58d6
6305 F20101118_AACRNJ lee_h_Page_33thm.jpg
b7836c9702640d489c81f5425a79a42b
4e2fc59284ef9056de492172a9abac01c5596d9f
F20101118_AACRDP lee_h_Page_44.tif
4d32125b86956a0e2a1a67d20462633f
c2354a450c30136536e671bcf19b7398202fc865
61012 F20101118_AACQWS lee_h_Page_17.jpg
961f95c19c32eae797a94de3668daf45
02c52e760c6decd261221e2e2ebcb90f78e04aa3
1688 F20101118_AACRIM lee_h_Page_05.txt
6444604d168bb31e9fce19b271606fdd
aba6dba0b9bf4475925804509cb2ba72c40caf0f
20589 F20101118_AACRNK lee_h_Page_34.QC.jpg
5c184ad2ea5e53fc5ac307a760b9da8f
fac0650714a47595775ccdeebc5b3f3565a2be40
F20101118_AACRDQ lee_h_Page_45.tif
f9db98675fb61f83c1b143b2fe2ca126
6aceb10146a19748ab375d643fbf92e458d5fcae
534 F20101118_AACRIN lee_h_Page_06.txt
0d38c5e963883194867ab0ecdf544f15
322601aa949b1f1f0cf83c2efa513e65e4265b93
20069 F20101118_AACRNL lee_h_Page_35.QC.jpg
3de1cc7ea1c3e27cae262c9d727e22ab
b51f546d8057e597bed1109834c72289094dc604
F20101118_AACRDR lee_h_Page_47.tif
c4dc56a5dc5175614c60974c6997c0ac
92082833280332d21a8cb7a1857a1509ca3bad18
83632 F20101118_AACQWT lee_h_Page_18.jpg
684f249d34a296bc559951d3d6e7cb19
85611a731218705b894f561557f02714e399b16b
2963 F20101118_AACRIO lee_h_Page_07.txt
b75afb80f830e8d1d47e6b3f16bd2fbb
9ea00b31b72a4c45ca53da0002263cf5ce26c419
5889 F20101118_AACRNM lee_h_Page_35thm.jpg
e896e2b6de0b6574a54584e32bc800f2
2dbdc8aead8455d5704400b09bea6c8e17c4e0aa
F20101118_AACRDS lee_h_Page_49.tif
dd727a41a0b60635e498466ce8f81b4c
f59d5c5d2a53873398163f64b3d67388ebcce935
87500 F20101118_AACQWU lee_h_Page_19.jpg
b277d77219f65413c7c9906559ba6112
cfd0df6ead0a7c9e2a42b1f403b52919cbef4e6b
1836 F20101118_AACRIP lee_h_Page_08.txt
5ac3baf256849033c51e409f48ca426e
08a0da24e70b81958b72c39fff5190b928086cf2
26558 F20101118_AACRNN lee_h_Page_36.QC.jpg
dd46f688f62cf8c9f7112effa28e6b75
b5ec43c95c5cf4ecfd18c7284553b5e88271a2b6
F20101118_AACRDT lee_h_Page_50.tif
3e4a99261435f435e3dd2062a6845ec8
af5d29f8f3321d55d1cdb3694c38763de09fda8b
66768 F20101118_AACQWV lee_h_Page_20.jpg
1656d0e15e4a88788023153fe43ddd03
cf6b51133e4b270998048b795f52e8199e731a32
1293 F20101118_AACRIQ lee_h_Page_09.txt
eab363dd0df07a5b10702e35d8729635
448808e6a9a6f2413676913422214550aa003614
F20101118_AACRNO lee_h_Page_36thm.jpg
4dd3bc47dff83c5338b028f13fa9cac1
a75da300c36b372164395dd855af1b2bf965fb7f
F20101118_AACRDU lee_h_Page_51.tif
37cc04a24367904155f031a76f47be28
f4ee54a9e25721f05e3eeb41bc6abad2722818e7
62107 F20101118_AACQWW lee_h_Page_21.jpg
cd57c3bd5eaa168384a548c9cef11622
10205dc3ac47892d2181bc0541d56ff3786ccea1
842 F20101118_AACRIR lee_h_Page_10.txt
47b5eeff2d63518802bbc3015e4d01f5
d6950cb6a056d5ad4dc8b6fbd8ea32c0ea2824a4
22438 F20101118_AACRNP lee_h_Page_37.QC.jpg
52fa2493e1ea0761fa7434915d39c7cc
c4f63cb760c120431de2d977cc5a5f5af855c91a
F20101118_AACRDV lee_h_Page_52.tif
55667aaa0a31e685b3fbc45f9905896a
09408be82a01d9d7d303d599d34ad63e4759a6f9
71819 F20101118_AACQWX lee_h_Page_22.jpg
a8486ec1959aa9c93d9877525e76c027
1236d6f9563146231912c3efa1432181d8de0f2f
1246 F20101118_AACRIS lee_h_Page_12.txt
ef10fc092ac9069337fc78b9dce572ba
9eda8015e6eb9e46b6ec10f79754c6d5fbec81c2
5721 F20101118_AACRNQ lee_h_Page_37thm.jpg
0a149e0c1d8c168eb274172481c647a8
f356daeb998b87abcb152e4502113892e85c94a2
F20101118_AACRDW lee_h_Page_53.tif
1c35b465b831bb70dabe1afe9608c4e8
8b95f55d2d69674a9dd6bed8a5cd3bc22301bf07
6082 F20101118_AACQUA lee_h_Page_32thm.jpg
74546280169b3b447feaac1771886df6
d1ba9d70368e0c7257a156bcd2f73bdaba86e5a7
65933 F20101118_AACQWY lee_h_Page_23.jpg
3514232279a70c45cfce78c972feb85e
f1ab3756aa24f67d8793372bd814fba5beb5db6c
1658 F20101118_AACRIT lee_h_Page_13.txt
bee7e1cf5215f581d50a886dff63a680
db58bf61b6284e9f889f48be8980a59845680790
16598 F20101118_AACRNR lee_h_Page_38.QC.jpg
af983efa71bd939808c6d12a9bcd14b3
d41708e2dd9974f4bf1865393a6a832f9e78b093
F20101118_AACRDX lee_h_Page_54.tif
7b49efca0dd5d709e1feff65d7d66b60
874c6ac1ba50e28528e311b34d3bc1042a5e7a51
F20101118_AACQUB lee_h_Page_20.tif
1c7ae0af2cb7f3e3392dedfe4c4d3945
ad9718b7aa3ae19c6dfe385c24c0d666ef88caae
65684 F20101118_AACQWZ lee_h_Page_25.jpg
51d8b818248ac119fa4e87ee62c17b82
293a1a3f65c681fe09244569edcb03a3801c26a4
1656 F20101118_AACRIU lee_h_Page_14.txt
02a2e1014ad3741cb42c26fd4f29a1b1
af905adf7ba99bc2a972a07da93de136e2aad444
4659 F20101118_AACRNS lee_h_Page_38thm.jpg
ee3339e25dade54337cd4934840be0b9
0d28879d6034c2609eca3034dbbbd532726758a7
F20101118_AACRDY lee_h_Page_55.tif
e5ab194bfddb0a54922d402c1c5196bf
98f5a9c48a6f14a8aacf3c74c325a4a5939f48a1
17710 F20101118_AACQUC lee_h_Page_11.QC.jpg
4f0330058b3e51f4ceff227c8780e9ff
ad26582fb7b72cb057ace327ec605aee5a48d663
1929 F20101118_AACRIV lee_h_Page_15.txt
109e571adff2164f596ca64409d58f8f
67f567e1fa7fdedb3a8fc96011c46f380e2f1a3a
20486 F20101118_AACRNT lee_h_Page_39.QC.jpg
223aae1f166bd86017fcb01d87e073e6
9f0e525d069548752daa22e287fc5df3e88a6fe4
F20101118_AACRDZ lee_h_Page_56.tif
1b327ba1ab827ea5606a564f7752e113
dce7a2028a9615471844f08a8ecfdafc8216995f
6038 F20101118_AACQUD lee_h_Page_26thm.jpg
0b4e80aad5a6b1d22cbfa5bd4bbe8232
be601bb1222dedc49a0c718d182f521760a22b73
1766 F20101118_AACRIW lee_h_Page_17.txt
a94aedb5adfea554eec91f64be3c16d2
d8778861bc8702c897f979e72a796fceb426d598
67302 F20101118_AACQZA lee_h_Page_82.jpg
8a0b291cac3f4ece9f1ed4ee23285c20
49a44dade444402527a9138da740c7e55d51cd9f
577641 F20101118_AACRBA lee_h_Page_54.jp2
1c265990dee99e888bb22e168ce5c026
8ca541e14bbde65d64b81781aa5e4ed9f62c430b
5820 F20101118_AACRNU lee_h_Page_39thm.jpg
844539287d8f28cfd1d50c16d1d8a441
06aa9d42702cee1741a444f8abe6e065d102c200
42337 F20101118_AACQUE lee_h_Page_39.pro
760e48c73a1409eb1caa7385c0a0be98
0799a1cf4905c6b64ff7bad540385788c92252bc
2523 F20101118_AACRIX lee_h_Page_18.txt
c02935245bdf09d0a6afce1686595687
e0f0951c9f4c55b0041cdaa89cd38d0e204d1287
76925 F20101118_AACQZB lee_h_Page_83.jpg
10c4195cbfd695190e80dba2246cd114
eb618ceb1b300c221cac6397e597fa49ddc46c49
486707 F20101118_AACRBB lee_h_Page_55.jp2
3858916482c480445bb9a076c8e9cf4a
4bf408322bdcdceb58e15ff86b6d17d724b2d963
22404 F20101118_AACRNV lee_h_Page_40.QC.jpg
6b91296a2acfeab815428bd4243a6bd3
741674298b73f6c562208260e64065ea1063303e
2621 F20101118_AACRIY lee_h_Page_19.txt
546ddd3df3cdc18f2d4d458688d2dd97
534f923e9ab82330ba740d21761209b80a34031d
100492 F20101118_AACQUF lee_h_Page_29.jp2
8e59e23b0ee80bd5ce5e24c376bd3933
198ae13a7dfc7ba4bb45324caf5be8d764a8e6be
54913 F20101118_AACRGA lee_h_Page_24.pro
3a37f5d56010b74dbda7f8571660a21f
f9cf62abbd14069c527e082b7b9d4c731a4c6000
82165 F20101118_AACQZC lee_h_Page_84.jpg
9dbcdd2229eb5d22b3879a8a48119ac6
44c35362b00e773119f8bc13da1c8760d39b94f7
88820 F20101118_AACRBC lee_h_Page_56.jp2
3ae036f1ee4373c268c57b10c93537e6
50b9f8626695cd654c03d418de924501ec4325aa
6162 F20101118_AACRNW lee_h_Page_40thm.jpg
c028ed4ecd2ed4a831475fab129eb9fb
803a147f70208e681c3edd8e223c78902756d1c2
1834 F20101118_AACRIZ lee_h_Page_20.txt
1e036a10cbddb27673a64f8e784a36a0
dd9932a9cd8117958314f4d27c5e579198f821cf
47481 F20101118_AACQUG lee_h_Page_67.pro
cea6f99481f85042f282f4e5a3e9cf93
f2b8f9bf65ad85b2bea10cea13f226c6084f75a8
45607 F20101118_AACRGB lee_h_Page_25.pro
434a164354c7d2376b1958eeeb137c61
225fedd64eb4f2920eb9c2b33f60e3e53b126a5f
74190 F20101118_AACQZD lee_h_Page_85.jpg
eb743d9371d8b72903cee90211800710
1b440372f9df1595c83c84bdabdd056695225152
93251 F20101118_AACRBD lee_h_Page_59.jp2
feb20a19f61ec68d43b99800b2af8940
644bc6fd9c24e0dcb3b2c01fd09cc28bc024f500
22188 F20101118_AACRNX lee_h_Page_41.QC.jpg
33edb2de76c3b52602cf209ff71a9557
f63bd3b5d2cb04d120e5f2aa0e24377c97902bb7
831 F20101118_AACQUH lee_h_Page_60.txt
b72122b6b6abd408903d37a60f3935be
2caf84c19cc3423c5feef6bc1a96bfbcb2630c07
67694 F20101118_AACQZE lee_h_Page_86.jpg
7b0536099045515b8ad70344c742fd47
f6a22b95bf2c00f82ff037b1b906161852d8ac43
38585 F20101118_AACRBE lee_h_Page_60.jp2
3c6c668c03c07ae0ebaf46c9a178fae4
fadaa2400aa82fd727748bab84fe7c57b9c455da
6074 F20101118_AACRNY lee_h_Page_41thm.jpg
5e67e38c6ffb8b3facd0bf4d700d8451
aa5e4014c7ccbd34ddba88b3152f7bf16563d6d4
F20101118_AACRLA lee_h_Page_82.txt
dfd7e19f884d294852d72ba0c9c3dbf1
edf911ccfbe71c62a29288867905ccfc670734a9
4261 F20101118_AACQUI lee_h_Page_46thm.jpg
0d8cbca9dbe90afbfb6bfeec79130b4b
a26fc166c072c0384a801c40f367b7550d7849f3
63543 F20101118_AACRGC lee_h_Page_26.pro
33d6ae6ec6dd1930e800e8790de38ce8
ae2b12d391f4f7c9143411c8ee799c2a234b85ab
18082 F20101118_AACQZF lee_h_Page_87.jpg
1789e604e49df190d7f7e69649bec4d5
441f63228ffb4b1dd5ca01bb840ffb56d7f9d18e
92811 F20101118_AACRBF lee_h_Page_61.jp2
971daa295ff65ee72f0d71d1a001c447
0261d1e74b84e0505a48c433e9ddb1fb21c36c15
25182 F20101118_AACRNZ lee_h_Page_42.QC.jpg
90bd91849d238c7c86f66bb23415f434
fd7d98435f91eb759ebcebd5b7ef5bc076451932
2141 F20101118_AACRLB lee_h_Page_83.txt
4da11f235ec08de97bf395a7257faab0
471bf4103d9d5be9d7fe8c4b6f2838b7d0c09c6a
2227 F20101118_AACQUJ lee_h_Page_41.txt
52bc6b8ba28d2bcb6f2a30df9e5433ae
7e41430dd6435ddc60561c67628be6ac2c1e7bf1
44167 F20101118_AACRGD lee_h_Page_27.pro
56e8e616cf3bb01e1b1c10c5119e8e26
e87dd4f804c55676943fb327f16f046868cc8a27
27872 F20101118_AACQZG lee_h_Page_01.jp2
66b2c267375ccaffc1ce15000c9deba2
e4d67c937ecef13a88ec30f3e595eb78e1c76b49
100481 F20101118_AACRBG lee_h_Page_63.jp2
4ed9e972a84337f5184aed8974262cca
e9c30c1d299edd3ae0bb29ede97047a224a323c0
2272 F20101118_AACRLC lee_h_Page_84.txt
def5ecc306ac2294214285e7eda6ec3a
9d9ffbc065389c6100ac314c61091e337a260edf
F20101118_AACQUK lee_h_Page_08.tif
19fc6317a2979369df9ad23bd6c85130
dd8e7e4e78aab2f165724e675bc4b3d13670ba00
46791 F20101118_AACRGE lee_h_Page_28.pro
fdb4c9cb8dbab3c75dce450c57767c23
bb2558c679f8ed6c5b9fec18ec30e1c811e05af1
5464 F20101118_AACQZH lee_h_Page_02.jp2
4e1c71646dde55d3f49851d9cc2b14e6
7ef7402634302e275c8504e499332921f08e6214
99216 F20101118_AACRBH lee_h_Page_65.jp2
32f0311586ea5dcf06d2db9b9558290d
05880a59d48e9a43617ad4ac24f3d0ad9c8d8dfd
4823 F20101118_AACRQA lee_h_Page_72thm.jpg
fdb640c71eada48032e548079d073888
11cb28c896811f2cb325e641947cf5b478b86693
2099 F20101118_AACRLD lee_h_Page_85.txt
2fc5494d43b8b8889bd5a4926dfd4fa3
86a5fa876d0f9d05925f18181848e0af3cf2c6b2
113769 F20101118_AACQUL lee_h_Page_24.jp2
9669fc26e4f85ab1d2673066e8afa7da
8b791b205a07922cc4ac3c3e4886ea3dd9353169
45161 F20101118_AACRGF lee_h_Page_29.pro
e74278657442947c8bf27e86738f8838
7d1a6516e1ad4f9b84f7e84502ec0821b1405078
12939 F20101118_AACQZI lee_h_Page_03.jp2
82405bbbe9c021f201aaaa70faf5dde3
9b0ccd3f434fe18906d5a8bddb5c49e5665713cf
94684 F20101118_AACRBI lee_h_Page_66.jp2
ea9500287bb12d0aeb9a20abcd38e7df
065ebda69a1b9fba198ecc9d4f621e1f85a6f77c
14215 F20101118_AACRQB lee_h_Page_73.QC.jpg
18c94462826af30bb09694dce19584cb
0a55fff51d5f00908ffb3708f22eab5cc0c8ab6a
1854 F20101118_AACRLE lee_h_Page_86.txt
0fb5dd4a1323fb1bfd8c78a66ecbea93
e61458beb169f89ecec8655a846aaf9936ed7722
6047 F20101118_AACQUM lee_h_Page_25thm.jpg
a8d118ea09347ad9a54d7d3f2a25bfe6
25cf2b2d805c0b16d2998a763667114b2739e9b3
F20101118_AACRGG lee_h_Page_30.pro
b58f2dd461b64a800c15e8acc1367a76
f6118512572bd6308f6fbe28d501cf361afc16c7
85992 F20101118_AACQZJ lee_h_Page_04.jp2
312a98e3e824a5a4a2970134624bc5a0
34579621abac30e755037452e226569b761eb9e7
101969 F20101118_AACRBJ lee_h_Page_67.jp2
3eac5b01e1a7738fa849b8798b66dd57
03312dc78a736fdb57d317d6a7039160290b94ef
4349 F20101118_AACRQC lee_h_Page_73thm.jpg
aabb3e0bcd174f7cfc91344e745c8d97
18b1fa555169209c7793f32a6323be55e6b2691b
309 F20101118_AACRLF lee_h_Page_87.txt
fb9df1205a70f496b79feeabe9e2a62f
460735692dad44bcbfc0d96d7bc2c5f95b04f4f5
91965 F20101118_AACQUN lee_h_Page_05.jp2
ba335bb33cf5856db7a35e8fd8f88cfd
8cb7b98c77fcff37f77121518e7899d9c2bab7df
50745 F20101118_AACRGH lee_h_Page_31.pro
bafce28f752e467c283f8cb015080702
82f93348fe0be5b54012778a75d7404b8b93c9ea
30745 F20101118_AACQZK lee_h_Page_06.jp2
dfee9831d662b2da8b1849c64b771ea1
83e64b586da38dd22fe860b5115ae9ec3d836eee
86716 F20101118_AACRBK lee_h_Page_68.jp2
85bb72c713635a5739f00386e4df42fb
c3899bd2505e0aa8f9b6306c2d96fcf0fc1c760b
18916 F20101118_AACRQD lee_h_Page_74.QC.jpg
c58a3ad7c3fa008c82b4947024e4eba7
46bd4472cd19ea3da0fe8a2fb9342e99a97cfc18
307560 F20101118_AACRLG lee_h.pdf
2ea988b51bde8f9ce4c0ae5271d6739e
4297a3eeb34c6ea1aadb9084fc488f37b7e10a82
21246 F20101118_AACQUO lee_h_Page_23.QC.jpg
0cd7011b7e1822b0ddb23def208e17b5
ab03c9e0a0f65f5fa2671a17b60cf4a88dd3fd49
53191 F20101118_AACRGI lee_h_Page_32.pro
2c291ee7effb77b9be64a3d77d62fbd1
1ddc3d749f97ecbc8156541384b85f558518e5e5
1051980 F20101118_AACQZL lee_h_Page_07.jp2
d6c1a11618bd23e0edfe7acf9ec4c70d
0e64e13c211198adc471786ad572363c2e1457e1
102281 F20101118_AACRBL lee_h_Page_69.jp2
7ce55e2eac25d22c5391d31b76214b3c
e76642433607c75a694259062bdcbd90a8211ae5
5337 F20101118_AACRQE lee_h_Page_74thm.jpg
af0bb59b92aac0a9b8eba581bd1d706d
703c21de774bf2276ae310f1921915ff3856d0b2
F20101118_AACQUP lee_h_Page_48.tif
418e57476c1549a9e203a5d82e5754ab
9ea0d980a3e67d30c4b1be11768caa5cff1ba482
48658 F20101118_AACRGJ lee_h_Page_33.pro
39011bcd9f5a6c955bfc8a29ad89982e
85ae93ed1b39e37966a21d839a15c9e9b6dd7dbf
F20101118_AACQZM lee_h_Page_08.jp2
86937045662ea11fd3b2281f5d971909
d02182dfe658ea426cd467434f61276f90a4e424
85590 F20101118_AACRBM lee_h_Page_70.jp2
c4ded284f1b6a8a9f364b39dffe1d111
dc901fb6ea30b5b07d6737570f998bc432e03e3a
16671 F20101118_AACRQF lee_h_Page_75.QC.jpg
7468d4dad405c6a03324d1cb2385ecd8
1bd6cf19082e116602c10334bb3ea6a92349eab1
7292 F20101118_AACRLH lee_h_Page_01.QC.jpg
1892e14d3f7dcd69d7c35afb5c88325a
eca4c47dc26a7f8e7612ad4ee505a5c2f5dcdce9
42873 F20101118_AACRGK lee_h_Page_34.pro
e352a2bbc09bcc81b46e27ffdad24590
7042fed3df2813f2f55258cadb7deec866b40b23
1022774 F20101118_AACQZN lee_h_Page_09.jp2
3305aba63e4a8108ccff970b02e443bf
9d6250fb985479968fb1fefd0b42858d0a09ffcf
97005 F20101118_AACRBN lee_h_Page_71.jp2
f66768b3a55e7eaba1213352cf4dc4be
a07488732680966f649f143e7b9fd5457eb234c8
5137 F20101118_AACQUQ lee_h_Page_75thm.jpg
86b6a47608a6f10af6975a3469811977
3441366449cb3564e31a8097a92ec9153a0fb6eb
2321 F20101118_AACRQG lee_h_Page_76thm.jpg
13647215760dfecdfc32fab02962fd78
f77a6935dcf529dce9fc416a74cb6f8395f3ef83
2673 F20101118_AACRLI lee_h_Page_01thm.jpg
4e98aa2575687471ac88038eaa1f2120
b347a8d75983821cdd26565e757f965d7245da62
43302 F20101118_AACRGL lee_h_Page_35.pro
9857857d8e6ec8f51a94f1181bc95fa9
27af3c1aed070b185823ee0c78554d987e752428
737421 F20101118_AACQZO lee_h_Page_10.jp2
4e6b8b3273f801791ea8575bdd2a136b
d8e2d5e1decae12baa4acc1a0721c022d56debc7
75562 F20101118_AACRBO lee_h_Page_72.jp2
01dba0e1f3e87ffec4df49419b7ec2c8
e01b7aa75cb22e9f7b498ea1d2fa73c19e1daab5
17717 F20101118_AACRQH lee_h_Page_77.QC.jpg
8a2e33876f0817d0a492377fed5347bf
c90af843c6a37d694fc91e74d8db669e12d99fad
3289 F20101118_AACRLJ lee_h_Page_02.QC.jpg
47f0e26e16a4f7eb948cdae7b307bb63
8219ac20aa8956e84aa70dcd602529a3cc76ee10
76555 F20101118_AACRGM lee_h_Page_36.pro
caee6ad4f5e3d47d404774a48ef2f85a
7667d7ccc13cc97d8cdbcdd3c04bae99f40f1519
81484 F20101118_AACQZP lee_h_Page_11.jp2
9607cb69af374f97d1582cfbfa5b0f11
607304736d8a56b3d1ae84722c8e91cdd4f11117
57336 F20101118_AACRBP lee_h_Page_73.jp2
ab5688566dfde738ce72c9a5e40e19ff
ae39f2798cb9fca3cfc322cc16df0db5de7a6e07
6733 F20101118_AACQUR lee_h_Page_84thm.jpg
1ddba424bb669161db837d06239a3abd
a1a3bec247736034c1bcfa99826caa1b17ef0958
4860 F20101118_AACRQI lee_h_Page_77thm.jpg
249c507e1769b989b17dc146f169c29d
ddae567ee865e5f4908952d4edb7710e82a9f7be
1378 F20101118_AACRLK lee_h_Page_02thm.jpg
4c31d6690153b552f94a1a19d4f70ca1
6b8cd6a8a9450fa6f8c5050292fb46587973e7e2
54438 F20101118_AACRGN lee_h_Page_37.pro
da06020ee2c4597547718f6cd88459a8
1ccfff146867675ea8640b49af807600d68ded10
69135 F20101118_AACQZQ lee_h_Page_12.jp2
19842c3b5272d8279745280a7391f60d
bcb7abe51d302536f23058ef03769be9377a2156
82269 F20101118_AACRBQ lee_h_Page_74.jp2
49663535c6f327f2ff9018f06b6eacc7
3735b8e3805e54cbcff2ad298458f43cf7486f6b
946 F20101118_AACQUS lee_h_Page_16.txt
33605898611f2f15f9fa1ee84a71097e
a920476e1989f15c76d2855cbfbb8aed1376ac05
20757 F20101118_AACRQJ lee_h_Page_78.QC.jpg
1ee4b4c17cf26cf7b37a9e90c47c860b
15b0f5e267d1d843b7d7424905e89413f615ed0d
4320 F20101118_AACRLL lee_h_Page_03.QC.jpg
d61947bacb3e76228fe706ee032505bc
865a7ac53ad71579a8084b7e76f41b72afb2f774
33235 F20101118_AACRGO lee_h_Page_38.pro
979d5155923c7598f4784669d5dc104d
ec506e6a6f2b791257e891b5d856eb989f951284
91052 F20101118_AACQZR lee_h_Page_14.jp2
5aa2991b2192eba95e5e9933c22e22ae
7e4a2e93bd9c7766dbcd1a65d7b2730699d3d365
75129 F20101118_AACRBR lee_h_Page_75.jp2
ce41c56f367272fc0f1ed0cf25eb3184
d710b165506c7c7d6458b18d0d4613ae7b445f8d
1633 F20101118_AACQUT lee_h_Page_11.txt
93f39bca0c82632641d451afaa973f4a
3c14b23194bc3100658074f186af836c342427a5
5818 F20101118_AACRQK lee_h_Page_78thm.jpg
9a7616aaa2e3b236a1fe782a5e72d8de
6fa6b62672f33656168c7e73304066c9e822dd34
F20101118_AACRLM lee_h_Page_03thm.jpg
b31ad108149c55f1cfa29594558a6c30
2c58e139f07a4f028e5377bcffaebd112cc8aad8
47595 F20101118_AACRGP lee_h_Page_40.pro
8b179ddb9dffb283067335da85470eac
889021f24b1db1bc6cf62cdc429e9b17abf9e9a3
98914 F20101118_AACQZS lee_h_Page_15.jp2
3f86ff504d00c544c1e40eae76a8a473
71fd3c88f77e5d48dacd06b8073880030552c8b9
24141 F20101118_AACRBS lee_h_Page_76.jp2
735557563b66514bd68597ae289d4903
feaeab6aeee4e61927d02e20a4ef2d9e6f6391e5
6149 F20101118_AACQUU lee_h_Page_29thm.jpg
8f368ba46071ad081259a42c2602ea35
1cf6d719f8492d280547b99555d190fe70349e76
17563 F20101118_AACRQL lee_h_Page_79.QC.jpg
5e6df8a78fa8a75fe34cce60c1546882
0630c4c9f939914df0e6d48f75737c151fd7920f
19871 F20101118_AACRLN lee_h_Page_04.QC.jpg
d8617e8d4d9988e6276e0f983e8090f1
19acf058794433810beb3f805d25973e74406f56
54270 F20101118_AACRGQ lee_h_Page_41.pro
f11937b5b050440ebc7d2efe3bb147a9
4c1f70b3a2e7eb2654cfac3034ed6a4a3523acf5
52363 F20101118_AACQZT lee_h_Page_16.jp2
6d65cb6b0d523783dcf881505ac1e8eb
9ddade8981dbe87de9de1b8d521e46523fee6aac
74147 F20101118_AACRBT lee_h_Page_77.jp2
2481030719ec291319b16ec563f0c202
c06d584735c6684f74a8698f5c4348d96e5e0bdb
5875 F20101118_AACQUV lee_h_Page_34thm.jpg
8cce6d715bb5fe44f136505f9bf139db
1afbf3dfcd7ebdf9e7e6f4d98a004681081f3c35
5857 F20101118_AACRLO lee_h_Page_04thm.jpg
6d6c67fed3a8ddf9259558c7cc4e6a4a
487f12b2518b92e9edc03cb2e9b8252e7de35c4d
75297 F20101118_AACRGR lee_h_Page_42.pro
94c5ca1e8f17c09cf0250648d4e4a06d
bcc6369b37f668ecfd16b9462201f37ffea21548
90507 F20101118_AACQZU lee_h_Page_17.jp2
5d5da845486d574d525ccb75c5e3f671
ed148f653569b3bf9f0d63275aa861a9c2ec2098
93706 F20101118_AACRBU lee_h_Page_78.jp2
140c399c74af418858e5fb2614204bf7
9925bd26d68adf7ac90161ba40505daf1e5d8aa8
F20101118_AACQUW lee_h_Page_67thm.jpg
e29d92bf03089b9f1fe1c6f0dab65024
6e892570c5a0d531b4e3ba33c93f7c95a3a314bf
22003 F20101118_AACRQM lee_h_Page_80.QC.jpg
81ee1ca7a8923037406f00454bb1f20a
14c9546bd4e888ad0176914680e8445d41f90cfa
21255 F20101118_AACRLP lee_h_Page_05.QC.jpg
76ead997519e583c65940e2adf7e7d6a
b63d4427fc7580f522907a22c21c0e9048422640
40490 F20101118_AACRGS lee_h_Page_43.pro
c05e68031284fc39ffa1e54571ab2340
ec8036225a5457337509bbc73fbf14fecbe7562b
126176 F20101118_AACQZV lee_h_Page_18.jp2
fbcdc79891d178d2d33892fe903a8871
c752f7bf777254815ceb312432895dd3d5df956c
76557 F20101118_AACRBV lee_h_Page_79.jp2
152443470cec59d43dc51c67ec1535b6
ea45e315b3b9c3d082941ac5b2f3a251bbf3b322
22303 F20101118_AACQUX lee_h_Page_24.QC.jpg
219f87a248000f91d63ac47d65273b09
2fc85bf4bc1f2978aef57b31f07749fb3923a924
5909 F20101118_AACRQN lee_h_Page_80thm.jpg
b77f6942796cd4b2e68f98d7bb4b10d7
7d77cfecd5be9be05bd3fcb3f8dc4ebc2bcc399c
5963 F20101118_AACRLQ lee_h_Page_05thm.jpg
0758a5b383d35e27674395cd8b487fec
d1ea70da2560faee33be6d7899a295e1fc8dc6d0
35222 F20101118_AACRGT lee_h_Page_44.pro
a7faaa8539a7df2d17c568a7da9b1c22
ff3c5cd7e0254b4b49655a61bf7c2d1744ef2fe9
96460 F20101118_AACRBW lee_h_Page_80.jp2
5963f3d6aa515121060c251d4fb9912f
8def9e43cadd1d7127c1e2a1095bce820a70b7c6
1284 F20101118_AACQUY lee_h_Page_53.txt
f7496733652b62555adeb61271612621
e479621195afe924769adc893a4b4055c758185c
16726 F20101118_AACRQO lee_h_Page_81.QC.jpg
0f8fb53e20326c6822a9459160ae77de
12e52cd40215529745afa38fa85f6ed1bf916d1e
8420 F20101118_AACRLR lee_h_Page_06.QC.jpg
c4bca59c6af8baadcbb7b2f6908ad081
bc48770db81605d031b60572d3dbae6b92fc9222
33925 F20101118_AACRGU lee_h_Page_45.pro
dc3e85ea9bddd5b2c5636c69ad0f4311
4394322b09cd3ca34e4399c4ee2cd82f166b3a97
129617 F20101118_AACQZW lee_h_Page_19.jp2
afda8b6d823816c05d42f9dd756518f0
55a035e7cff8e044c18a1bdfb8e751830feede7c
104181 F20101118_AACRBX lee_h_Page_82.jp2
24841892ce84fdf5601dc9b1d4512a4b
bd001a3b3c9c23fd85be9c6ef46245da8459bf1e
76823 F20101118_AACQUZ lee_h_Page_37.jpg
aaa57b2efe7242b17f6f34ef3121461a
ccb725d87261d31da64888f36a60592b8ba5be0a
4926 F20101118_AACRQP lee_h_Page_81thm.jpg
3bf10459c7794673431f88ee42eecef2
c482a96eb061919039e7ecff5677df14073cb4ab
2658 F20101118_AACRLS lee_h_Page_06thm.jpg
c8a80c966859dc7253cfd63d06ff9e7d
8f20fbb417d36f398efe2c3813f6daa6dcf3ffc4
16405 F20101118_AACRGV lee_h_Page_46.pro
ac74ec2a108cafcbc5931bf458c4516a
61fd34f0ee5c21eb0028cc92b39f1bf4fdf17696
99339 F20101118_AACQZX lee_h_Page_20.jp2
fb79d7592981089c53318bdb3c07acd2
9c8f8e3b0eab0e711a13cb90e93d0ac2f38e558c
117399 F20101118_AACRBY lee_h_Page_83.jp2
bb6104590b8bf600e42269eabee3170a
cf01dd1e622e229713fbbf2fcb368d3698f0a475
20397 F20101118_AACRQQ lee_h_Page_82.QC.jpg
17d2a2f25dcb8adf10ff357dd1bac64c
2558895108af93809071fa36205aefa92701041b
16872 F20101118_AACRLT lee_h_Page_07.QC.jpg
18ed0d439c2ba0879cbfb1a1f598a076
c6d0625555fc40f1be16d81adf5b63f5bcadb8c4
45124 F20101118_AACRGW lee_h_Page_47.pro
97e7cd18d597d3581859d7d00faf75be
11cd75899c4ff7c992dcc66897618f47e34e5a6e
84846 F20101118_AACQXA lee_h_Page_26.jpg
c86baed0394b4d32c5cb630b1517dd8e
4505a9325335be76971cc32b7bce55aa98f82a39
93434 F20101118_AACQZY lee_h_Page_21.jp2
89a7705516d77adc569ae72f78f18486
a6d7c550dce0a3c3512c35fcc8f0d9d832a34b01
124281 F20101118_AACRBZ lee_h_Page_84.jp2
083c7d0c66158571442c0af1518ef1c3
f1f3c473563cda10f3cae754f115d714407e631d
5677 F20101118_AACRQR lee_h_Page_82thm.jpg
b862efb44ea90ec231c95a720746a82f
81144f60ab46c6320ebdb6801c145cfd92304add
4483 F20101118_AACRLU lee_h_Page_07thm.jpg
4663ffae670ef88e9d319221ffcc9d85
e5f048c24166402571632ba8c451e6df89919ea8
17851 F20101118_AACRGX lee_h_Page_48.pro
70688ada84465b5bfabf8d86b0c81bca
83cf94e6f6ae165154f9ed8153a5a6de540c5a0c
66273 F20101118_AACQXB lee_h_Page_27.jpg
e37118558e8ed149d36e57d6fca906a0
2f32194988f66d2ed23a0ce37030148f6ce97604
107536 F20101118_AACQZZ lee_h_Page_22.jp2
430599f0f7a1225d6dd7a1524cbbcd44
df4ba800d61f8d9e70997745768aaf2d0cbcfc51
22500 F20101118_AACRQS lee_h_Page_83.QC.jpg
9fdd51d2d0aea17ab58addf1e0567b12
e93b73ecf5747f670072c42e1b9c5c92f37f6f5c
12232 F20101118_AACRLV lee_h_Page_08.QC.jpg
0269b1363374600d98261c0b5d0d406e
42c020d27ca876aa8500cd9cf3ae158fab24ad21
21339 F20101118_AACRGY lee_h_Page_49.pro
e8dd845de723d11e5373e167ea3c3c3b
f4b1e9bcbff5a8227aced2941448ed3cce2ed7cf
66855 F20101118_AACQXC lee_h_Page_28.jpg
9d68bbb0c3d44331e4e8e59c451f8eaf
efde229eaacf4107761a76abca6334ea284a52aa
6449 F20101118_AACRQT lee_h_Page_83thm.jpg
554dcfb738abdff4e6a71f191e0d02c8
5e9ad6e3fe225a113ba4c59f530fd7108d008df4
3410 F20101118_AACRLW lee_h_Page_08thm.jpg
a68b128ac0b2b3cd2199e914d4abac4f
f5cf2915da5c9a153f6171f50d62103a1735aab3
59146 F20101118_AACRGZ lee_h_Page_50.pro
4f38cb28e3f69179b2015598ed5a99d7
128e18b540e1184a80bac11ce02113ad4a3acbb0
66612 F20101118_AACQXD lee_h_Page_29.jpg
4f2cb0fd438916a495aa5e53de236925
1403fae6325a6f7eb4d7e6f4bbd54aa7ce9e89c6
F20101118_AACREA lee_h_Page_57.tif
39e39c46cb4b528bdada51b22bb72ae2
9af7855506cc0535c16f3c86c9ad99b64a32b35f
24075 F20101118_AACRQU lee_h_Page_84.QC.jpg
a218d26b288cb4f85125b37256af6c4b
d0b5618ad2f1963a314bbf0bc519133442fe32c4
12635 F20101118_AACRLX lee_h_Page_09.QC.jpg
5b5630c33c54ce4ae3cccef73a535da2
a41aacaa9c3915033530064ba6f8ab0b24b6cc3c
68516 F20101118_AACQXE lee_h_Page_30.jpg
7fa0887396f337ebd0f20eb74fbc03a1
f17286afab6c2bb2cb684c761f272183ccfd14d9
F20101118_AACREB lee_h_Page_58.tif
61a7a4026c013dc6be1e950c09e90196
d8d9eb089b1cf602298c83f472976e885325e58a
22241 F20101118_AACRQV lee_h_Page_85.QC.jpg
860bbac8f128dab75fc645ce2c49ecfd
d8e0daa2089a090daa1d27409719c185192d3614
3743 F20101118_AACRLY lee_h_Page_09thm.jpg
6c238096bf7056f02c2a4b8c00419e07
cba3dec67d93bdc62da8336ec48770d917e731aa
1673 F20101118_AACRJA lee_h_Page_21.txt
efe308d9d59d025e0b3e137ba66f8566
5162eab5f4ddac5fd332c3d9125941c6b05252f8
70601 F20101118_AACQXF lee_h_Page_33.jpg
44eec7a9c323d35c638dcbe8fbc40597
c9a7cfabe16fd07f05aed9f58f2313b6a632c8c9
F20101118_AACREC lee_h_Page_59.tif
aa9ffb4567de0ddbf0de53dd937e0199
5f12c0c069e6df30f0d01d7fb9f14b8d5c4595b8



PAGE 1

NEW PARADIGM OF PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND BROADENED RELATIONSHIP BUILDING: A COMPARATIVE ANAYSIS OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS’ WEB SITES By HYUNG MIN LEE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Hyung Min Lee

PAGE 3

This thesis is dedicated to my family including two puppies. Also, many thanks go to my advisers, friends, and colleague s, who have been very supportive and encouraging.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I want to thank my parents, sister, and two puppies back in Seoul, South Korea, who have always been there for me in good times or bad times. I have never been good to my fa mily, despite their unconditional support and concern. Also, I have not expressed my gratitude firsthand. However, I would like to show them my indescribable th ankfulness through this acknowledgement at least. I cannot thank enough my academic advisor and committee chair, Dr. JuanCarlos Molleda, for having given me thoughtful care and warmhearted encouragement. He always led me to have a higher vision and supported me to make the impossible the possible. Without his advice, I would ne ver have finished this work. I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Linda Hon and Dr. Michael Mitrook. Throughout the whole peri od of my master’s degree program, I was lucky enough to have an opportunity to share their renowned knowledge. Also, they have given me extraordinary advice to make this research possible. I am truly grateful to them. In addition, I would like to thank the Korean faculty of the college, Dr. Chang-Hoan Cho, Dr. Youjin Choi, and Dr. Hyojin Kim. They were definitely in my support system not only publicly but also privately. They always set good examples that I want to follow. Hyojin Shin, Young Shin Hong, Na Y oung Park, Hye-Min Yeon, Hyeri Choi, Seo Yoon Choi, Dong Jin Lim, and Jimi Park have been my good fellows as well

PAGE 5

v as phenomenal classmates. I think we met together and have become friends by a million to one chance. They have always been there for me, and I will be there for them forever. Special thanks go to the Korean Co mmunigator Tennis Club members, Jong Woo Jun, Sang Won Lee, Hyung Seok Lee, Young Han Bae, Jin Seong Park, Yang Hwan Lee, Jae Hee Park, Eyun-Jung Ki, Hyung-Jung Yun, and Hyung Doung Lee. I will never forget the great moments and talks we had. In addition, I cannot thank them enough for their advice and concern throughout my PhD application process. Other Korean communigators, includ ing Hyoung Koo Khang, You Na Kim, Kenneth Eun Han Kim, Robert Jang Yu l Kim, Yoon Jae Nam, Jang Won Moon, Chong Moo Woo, Sang Mi Lee, Seon Mi Lee, Joon Soo Lim, Ah Young Ji, Bumsub Jin, Chang Hyun Jin, Ji Young Ch a, should be regarded. I have nothing but good memories about them. I would like to thank all my public relations classmates as well, including Alexis, Ben, Chantal, Chun-Hsin, Danny, Elise, Emel, Lori, Meghan, Meredith, Paul, Wes, Yi-Jong, and Yi-Shan fo r their kindness and friendship. Also, I would like to thank the Scot t family, Anne, Terry, and Tim, for making me feel great hospitality and taste American lifestyles. I will never forget the warmhearted kindness that they have s hown me. I always pray for their wellbeing and happiness. All my friends back in South Korea s hould be mentioned for just being there and wising me good luck. My Myung-Il dong family has been the biggest motivation for me to keep trying to be th e best, since I was a little kid. Also, I

PAGE 6

vi would like to thank many friends, senior s, and juniors at Han Yang University, especially my fraternal friends of the culture club, also known as Moon-Hwa Bu. Without their support and care, I would have felt very lonely. Last but not least, I woul d like to salute all the student athletes of the University of Florida. They have show n me what the indomitable effort is and made me proud to be a Gator. It has been real honor for me just to share those unbelievable moments with them on campus.

PAGE 7

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................x ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Extension of the Public Relations' Domain..................................................................1 The Convergence of Public Diplomacy and Public Relations......................................2 The Purpose of the Study..............................................................................................4 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................5 Globalization and World Politics..................................................................................5 New Technologies and World Politics.........................................................................8 Public Diplomacy.......................................................................................................11 Public Opinion............................................................................................................13 National Brand and Image-making toward Broadended Publics...............................16 Propaganda and Public Diplomacy.............................................................................17 Internet Technology and Public Diplomacy...............................................................20 Realpolitik vs. Noopolitik...........................................................................................22 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................27 Research Design and Data Collection........................................................................27 Theoretical Foundation of the Coding Instrument......................................................29 Pretest and Coder Training.........................................................................................31 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................32 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................33 Research Question 1...................................................................................................33 Research Question 2...................................................................................................35

PAGE 8

viii Research Question 3...................................................................................................36 Research Question 4...................................................................................................39 Research Question 5...................................................................................................42 Hypothesis 1, 2, and 3.................................................................................................43 Hypothesis 4, 5, and 6.................................................................................................45 Hypothesis 7, 8, and 9.................................................................................................47 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION........................................................................49 Current Status of World Countries Public Diplomacy Web Sites.............................49 Dialogic Relationship Buildi ng in Public Diplomacy................................................51 Non-state Actor Relations in Public Diplomacy........................................................55 Global Issue Management in Public Diplomacy........................................................57 Limitations..................................................................................................................58 Suggestions for Future Research................................................................................59 APPENDIX A CODING SHEET FOR TH E CONTENT ANALYSIS.............................................61 B CODE BOOK FOR TH E CONTENT ANALYSIS...................................................65 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................70 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................75

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Number of Public Diplomacy We b Sites Utilized by Each Countries.....................35 4-2 Number of Analyzed Web S ites by a Type of Organization....................................35 4-3 Occurrence of Dialogic Re lationship Building Items..............................................38 4-4 Frequencies of Non-state Actor Di alogic Relationship Building Features..............40 4-5 Occurrence of Non-state Actor Di alogic Relationship Building Items....................41 4-6 The Regression Model Summary.............................................................................44 4-7 Coefficients (H1 through H3)..................................................................................44 4-8 The Regression Model Summary.............................................................................46 4-9 Coefficients (H4 through H6)..................................................................................46 4-10 The Regression Model Summary.............................................................................47 4-11 Coefficients (H7 through H9)..................................................................................48

PAGE 10

x LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1 Public Diplomacy Web Sites’ Absence/Presence....................................................34 4-2 Absence/Presence of English Version Web Site......................................................36 4-3 The Histogram of Web Site Dial ogic Relationship Building Strategies..................37 4-4 The Bar Chart of Non-state Acto r Relations Information Prominence....................39 4-5 The Histogram of Non-state Acto r Relationship Building Strategies......................41 4-6 Absence/Presence of Global Issue Concern.............................................................42 4-7 The Bar Chart of Global Issue Information Prominence.........................................43

PAGE 11

xi Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Mast er of Arts in Mass Communication NEW PARADIGM OF PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND BROADENED RELATIONSGHIP BUILDING: A COMP ARTIVE ANALYSIS OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS’ WEB SITES By Hyung Min Lee May 2005 Chair: Juan-Carlos Molleda Major Department: Journalism and Communications This study aims to explain the new paradi gm of public diplomacy and explicate it with the public relations perspective in term s of international relationship management. Due to globalization and th e information revolution re sulting from technological developments, there has been significant tr ansition in internati onal public diplomacy. Public diplomacy in recent years requires more open and symmetric communication and relationship management skills with a broade ned spectrum of publics. Therefore, more public relations approaches to public dipl omacy are needed increasingly. This study attempts to investigate the current status of world countries’ public diplomacy through the Internet medium. Also, it is to discern na tional variables, such as political system, economic scale, and level of freedom, influenc ing countries’ public diplomacy quality in terms of dialogic relationship building strategies, non-stat e actor relations, and global

PAGE 12

xii issue management. To accomplish the purposes of this study, a cont ent analysis of the 191 UN member countries’ public di plomacy Web sites was conducted. Statistical results proved that today’s worl d countries adjust themselves to the new paradigm of public diplomacy relatively we ll in terms of adaptation of Web public diplomacy communication channels and ove rall dialogic relati onship management. However, world countries still need to im prove themselves regarding non-state actor relations and global issue management. In addition, statistical tests revealed that a country’s economic scale and level of freedom are significant predictors in explaining its quality of overall dialogic relationship management and non-state actor relations. Als o, a country’s economic scale influences its level of concern about global issues, which can be described as global responsibility. This study calls for more public relations at tention to contribute to effective and mutually beneficial public diplomacy in term s of international re lationship management. It is hoped that this study will serve as a platform for a more extended body of knowledge of public relations as well.

PAGE 13

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Extension of the Public Relations’ Domain Increasingly, the field of public relati ons has been expanding its influence by applying its unique ideas and th eories to different areas. Given that public relations basically deals with all kinds of relationships among orga nizations and societies, it seems pretty natural. Now we can easily see public relations regarding management politics, public diplomacy, and so forth. Many scholars and practitioners are trying to explore social phenomena with public relations viewpoints and th ey have proved the efforts are valuable (e.g., Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001; Molleda, Connoly-Ahern, & Quinn, 2005). Especially, when it comes to cross-nationa l or cross-cultural context, the value of public relations and its imp lications are likely to be more important in terms of building and maintaining relationships with quite different ent ities. Regardless of an organization’s characterist ic, if it is a private comp any, a public enterprise, or even a country, composing and operating it with international perspectives have become much more essential. In this ever-globalizing world, all of these organizations are trying to keep in touc h and build relationships with external environments, the world, in order to es tablish mutually beneficial relations Taylor (2000) argued, “public relations may be viewed better as a tool to negotiate relationships between previously unr elated social systems or as a tool to

PAGE 14

2 modify existing relationships between organizations and publics” (pp. 179-180). Definitely, the extension of public relations to international context is favorable and promising. The Convergence of Public Diplomacy and Public Relations The emergence of public relations a pproaches in international public diplomacy is remarkable. As the “Cold War” ended and the new world order has set, the world is literall y becoming a battlefield. Ironi cally, the appeased tension between the world’s two powerhouses, the S oviet Union and the United States, has caused more internationa l conflicts among nations (Jacobson & Jang, 2003). Countries emancipated from colonization ha ve suffered from absence of concrete institutions and national identities, and c onsequent internal disorders. Some newlyindependent countries even have manifested long-hidden social tensions such as ethnic and religious conflicts (Hoffmann, 2002). International conflicts concerning resources, borders, a nd religions are exploding. As a result, world governments are requi red to be active participants in international public relations more th an ever (Signitzer & Coombs, 1992). Jacobson and Jang (2003) asserted that “the growing interest among governments in ‘public diplomacy’ indicates that pub lic opinion cannot be ignored entirely, either inside or outside national borders ” (p. 64). In addi tion, a considerable number of national governments are recrui ting or outsourcing professional public relations practitioners for their glob al image-making activities (Manheim & Albritton, 1984).

PAGE 15

3 There has been significant transition in international public diplomacy tendencies. For example, many scholars ha ve pointed out the emergence of “soft power,” rather than “hard power,” which was prevalent in the past, within the public diplomacy territory. “Soft power” is the ability to achieve desired outcomes in international affairs through attraction rather than coercion. It works by convincing others to follow, or getting them to agree to, norms and institutions that produce the desired behavior. Soft power can rest on the appeal of one’s ideas or the ability to set the agenda in ways that shape the preferen ce of others. If a state can make its power legitimate in the perception of others and establish international institutions that encour age them to channel or limit their activities, it may not need to expa nd as many of its costly traditional economic or military resources. (Nye & Owens, 1996, p. 21) Due to those transformations in public diplomacy, public relations theories are vigorously applied to foreign affairs and international politics. Saxer (1993) argued that “an analysis and assessment of the political-scientific concept of symbolic politics and its implementation in political practice from a PR-scientific perspective can furnish relevant impulses and ideas ” (p. 146). In addition, L’Etang (1996) insisted, “both public relations and diplomacy deal in tr ust and use strategies of negotiation and impression management wh ile guarding the reputation of their clients” (p. 27). Many studies also show that public outreach campaigns would be instrumental, even if a situation is co ncerned with a relationship building or maintenance between one nation and th e other nation (e.g., Zhang & Cameron, 2003; Zhang & Benoit, 2004; Zhang, Qiu, & Cameron, 2004).

PAGE 16

4 The Purpose of the Study This study aimed to identify the new paradigm of public diplomacy with regard to the public relations perspectiv e, specifically focusing on broadened relationship building strategies employed by world governments’ Web sites. There are many trends and evidence in favor of increasing changes in public diplomacy worldwide. The study also attempted to identify the current transition regarding effective public diplomacy strategies and how world governments actually adjust themselves to this transition through gove rnmental Web sites. In addition, the researcher tried to discern national vari ables, including politic al system, economic scale, and freedom, which might influence th e extent to which a country applies the new concept of international public diplom acy and tries to build and maintain good relationships with concerned publics.

PAGE 17

5 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Globalization and World Politics We often use the term “globalization” to describe contemporary social, economic, cultural, and political situa tions within the global system. The globalization process today is not only a dominant trend but also an inevitable force, in that linkages among world peopl e and states are expanding (Greig, 2002). Scholte (1997) describe d globalization by three con cepts. The first concept implies the increase in cross-national relati ons. Apparently, exchanges of materials, such as products, ideas, finance, and even people, among countries have been augmenting. The second concept illustrate s disappearance of barriers between world people and states in terms of gl obal-scale movements of goods. Finally, the third concept views globaliz ation as transcendence of national borders. This means comprehensive relations among global public s reducing the traditional meaning of geographical territories. Keohane and Nye (2000) asserted: “Globalization” emerged as a buzzword in the 1990s, just as “interdependence” did in the 1970s, but the phenomena it refers to are not entirely new. Our characterization of interdependence more than 20 years ago now applies to globalization at the turn of the millennium: “This vague phrase expresses a poorly understood but widespread feeli ng that the very nature of world politics is changing.” (p. 104) They also claimed a manifestation of globalization phenomena depends on whether a “globalism” condition increases or decr eases. In other words, the current

PAGE 18

6 globalization trend throughout the world refe rs to thickening of “globalism.” According to Keohane and Nye (2002), “Globalism is a state of the world involving networks of interdependence at multicontinental distances. The linkages occur through flows and influences of capital and goods, information and ideas, and people and forces, as well as envir onmentally and biologically relevant substances (such as acid ra in or pathogens)” (p. 105). In addition, they posited three subseque nt changes as globalization phenomena deepen. 1. Density of networks: As interdep endence and globalism have become thicker, systemic relationships among different networks have become more important. Thickness of globalism mean s that different relationships of interdependence intersect more deeply at more points. Hence, the effects of events in one geographical area, on one dimension, can have profound effects in other geographical areas, on other dimensions. 2. Institutional velocity: The informa tion revolution is at the heart of economic and social globalization. Mark ets react more quickly than before, because information diffuses so much more rapidly and huge sums of capital can be moved at a moment’s notice and NGOs have vastly expanded their levels of activity. 3. Transnational participa tion and complex interdep endence: Reduced costs of communications have increased th e number of participating actors and increased the relevance of “comple x interdependence.” This concept describes a hypothetical world with thr ee characteristics: multiple channels between societies, with multiple actors, not just states; multiple issues, not arranged in any clear hierarchy; and th e irrelevance of the threat or use of force among states linked by comp lex interdependence. (pp. 108-115) Lagon (2003) classified positive visions and negative visions regarding globalization. Positive visions include the following: 1. The expanded pie vision: Because capital fl ows and the workings of comparative advantage are all the more rapid and automatic, because barriers to trade are futile and are being removed, because technology flows unfettered to new users, the world ec onomic pie is growing. While there are relative haves and have-nots, the in creased pie means both are getting a better lot.

PAGE 19

7 2. The information penetration vision: Because of communications technology allegedly available to and applicable by even less developed nations, governments cannot control information. Undemocratic regimes can no longer successfully control news media to retain a monopoly of political power. 3. The universal solvent vision: Capitalism of th e globalization era will wash away autocracies. Burgeoning trade and foreign investment will inevitably lead to economic devel opment and economic liberalization, and hence ultimately to pol itical liberalization. 4. The web of peace vision: It is increasingly im possible for nation-states to ignore the loss of economic prosperity involved in military conflict. A web of interconnectedness is developi ng between nations—even between democratically and undemo cratically ruled nations —which is making war obsolete. (pp. 142-143) On the contrary, negative visions include: 1. The economic inequity vision: Champions of this vision are concerned with the rush of businesses to put their money into economies with limited labor rights and costs and the resulting loss of jobs in advanced countries, and the power of multinational corporations’ outstripping that of some developing states. 2. The insecurity vision: Growing transnational security threats include proliferation of both weapons of ma ss destruction and conventional and small arms; terrorist networks; ethn ic groups with murderous agendas regarding their groups; a nd chaos, violence, and re fugee migration resulting from weak or failed states. 3. The criminality vision: Those activities include intellectual property piracy, corruption, money laundering, and networks for trafficking in drugs, guns, and persons. (p. 143) Regardless of those contradictory views, one thing that is for sure is the new paradigm shift in world po litics is inevitable in this age of globalization. For example, after September 11, world govern ments’ diplomatic conception and attitude have been significantly changed, because the case showed newly emerging global actors including individuals and interest groups, along with states, and requests of new relationshi p building endeavor with those global entities (Hoffmann, 2002). As Nye (2002) explained, “F or better and worse, technology is putting capabilities within the reach of indivi duals that were solely the preserve of

PAGE 20

8 government in the past” (p. 76). In additi on, traditional diplomatic means, such as military forces and raw materials, appear to be ineffective or too much costly, whereas “the factors of technology, edu cation, and economic growth are becoming more significant in international powe r” (Nye, 1990, p. 154). All in all, world governments will experience much more unf oreseen difficulties in dealing with international politics and public diplomacy. Th erefore, they have to transform their previous routines into the new paradigm in accord with this globalization era. New Technologies and World Politics As aforementioned, new technologies are one of the main causal factors of both globalization and the paradigm shift in world politics. We are living in entirely different world because of recent technology developments. More important, the power resources related to world politics have been disseminated from some mighty states to weaker states or even private actors. Nye (1990) referred to five contribu ting trends to this powerful diffusion phenomenon: “economic interdependence, tr ansnational actors, nationalism in weak states, the spread of technology, and changing politic al issues” (p. 160). First of all, economic interdependence among worl d countries is mainly attributed to technology developments. Due to new technol ogies, people can travel around the world even faster and cheaper, also can communicate with other foreign people in a more convenient and reasonable way. Nye (1990) asserted that “the declining costs of transportation and communication ha ve revolutionized global markets and accelerated the development of transnationa l corporations that transfer economic activity across borders” (p. 161).

PAGE 21

9 The increased economic interdependence has led to increased transnational interests. In particular, as enormous tr ansnational investments are common, world politics have become very complicat ed. Transnational actors including multinational corporations, international NGOs, and prominent public figures have actively participated in the process of world politics along with state governments. Accordingly, today’s world governments ha ve to incorporate other transnational actors’ voices in their policy decision-making (Nye, 1990). New technology developments also have given unprecedented power to poor or weak states in terms of rising natio nalism and ethnocentrism. Members of weak states or minority groups have become to be able to unite and mobilize their once scattered resources, and have become vocal in world politics (Nye, 1990). For example, world governments cannot simply ignore voices from Muslim terrorist groups, such as Al-Qaeda or HAMAS, because they are more systematic and wellorganized than they were in the past, due to new communication and transportation technologies. Meanwhile, technology developments per se have accelerated the power diffusion of the world. Not to men tion communication or transportation technologies, overall tec hnology developments have contributed to the power diffusion at a global level. For instance, arms technology developments enabled non-state actors including guerrillas and te rrorist groups to ob tain weapons more easily and inexpensively to resist their an tagonists, and therefore they are becoming powerful (Nye, 1990).

PAGE 22

10 Consequently, internat ional political issues ar e in transition. World governments are trying to cooperate with thos e non-state actors in addition to other governments. As Nye (1990) explained: The solutions to many current issues of transnational interdependence will require collective action and intern ational cooperation. These include ecological changes (acid rain and global warming), health epidemics such as AIDS, illicit trade in drugs, and terrorism. Such issues are transnational because they have domestic roots and cross international borders. (pp. 163164) According to Matthew (2002), “the future of humankind may depend on finding creative ways to rebalance social and ecological relationships as well as local and global ones” (p. 251). More important, communication technology advances, including the Internet, require br oadened relationship building strategies to world governments. Solomon (2000) il lustrated the current transformation of U.S. foreign policy as “diffusion of diplomac y.” Also, he argued that “The Internet has thrown open governments’ gates to ne w constituencies who are not limited by traditional geographic or other physical barri ers from actively participating in the policy-making process” (Solomon, 2 000, n.p.). Moreover, “they (non-state individuals and groups) not only use the Internet to gather information but also to broadcast information globa lly and advocate specific policy actions on everything from trade to human rights policies” (Solomon, 2000, n.p.). Maynard and Tian (2004) pointed out that globalization and technology developments both contributed to not onl y creating cultural ho mogenization at a global level but also strengt hening nationalism or ethnocentrism at a local level. Previously estranged people from the worl d politics are coming back to the main stage while unifying under their simila r backgrounds, including ethnicity,

PAGE 23

11 nationality, religion, and so forth. These phenomena have given much pressure on world governments to accommodate the new paradigm of public diplomacy. Public Diplomacy Public diplomacy is the neologism to describe changed diplomatic ways of world governments. According to Ross ( 2002), “it is not traditional diplomacy, which consists essentially of the interact ions that take place between governments” (p. 75). In the past, conventional diplomacy practitioners only dealt with and communicated with the representatives of foreign governments to understand and share each other’s ideals and policies. Ho wever, public diplomacy needs to engage much segmented and broadened foreign publics in inter-state policy-making and nation’s image making processes (Ross, 2002). Fitzpatrick (2004) also viewed public diplomacy similarly. She explained that “public diplomacy efforts are directed at the citizens of othe r countries” (p. 413). Fitzpatrick (2004) continued, “More traditional diploma tic efforts, on the other hand, are typically aimed at influencing other governments through their national leaders.” Then, why does public diplomacy get into the spotlight over traditional diplomacy in recent years? Thompson (1977) argued that “for many of the developed countries, there is an unmistaka ble trend away from unilateral cultural relations toward reciprocal culture relati ons based on respect for the integrity of human cultures and the desirability of keep ing cultural relations free from political domination and power differentials” (p. 243). Moreover, the current of the time have contributed to the emergence of public diplomacy perspective globally. For

PAGE 24

12 example, as Fitzpatrick (2004) asserte d, many U.S. diplomacy practitioners now acknowledge the importance of long-ter m relationship building and mutual understanding with other countries or even private actors to defend their national security after 9/11. Today, it is almost impossible to secure national interests overseas based on solely geographic advantages, military power, or natural resources. That is why “members of Congress called for increased funding for Middle East public diplomacy initiatives” soon after 9/11 (Fitzpatrick, 2004, p. 414). In line with Nye’s “s oft power” conception, Sign itzer and Coombs (1992) compared the “tough-minded” and the “t ender-minded” distinction of public diplomacy. The “tough-minded” diplomatic idea can be summarized as the following: The tough-minded hold that the purpose of public diplomacy is to exert an influence on attitudes of forei gn audiences using persuasion and propaganda. Hard political information is considered more important than cultural programs. Fast media such as radio, television, newspapers and news magazines are given preference over other forms of communication. Objectivity and the truth are consider ed important tools of persuasion but not extolled as virtues in themse lves. Supreme criterion for public diplomacy is the raison d’tat defined in terms of fairly short-term policy ends. (p. 140) On the other hand, the “tender-minded” di plomatic idea can be described as the following: The tender-minded school argues that information and cultural programs must bypass current foreign policy goal s to concentrate on the highest longrange national objectives. The goal is to create a climate of mutual understanding. Public diplomacy is seen as a predominantly cultural function as opposed to the conveying of hard political information. Slow media such as films, exhibitions, langua ge instruction, academic and artistic exchanges with a view toward tran smitting messages about lifestyles, political and economic systems, and ar tistic achievements are used. Truth

PAGE 25

13 and veracity are considered essential, much more than a mere persuasive act. (p. 140) Obviously, current public diplomacy tende ncies lean toward “tender-minded” concept and apply “soft power” to build mu tually beneficial relationships with foreign publics. Government officials a nd diplomacy practiti oners learned from previous trials and erro rs of foreign affairs. Given that public diplomacy also deal s with mutually beneficial relationship building and maintenance, public diplom acy and foreign policy processes are closely correlated to public relations e ndeavor of states (Kunczik, 2003). In fact, many embassies or foreign affairs minist ries even recruit public relations or advertising firms to implement public diplomacy abroad effectively. The government of Mexico contracted with Bu rson-Marsteller to ameliorate relations with media, decision-makers, and general publics of the United States, and spent $1 million dollars a year. Colombia, which suffered from the notorious image as a hotbed of drugs, did advertising campaigns in order to better the national images in the United States (Zaharna & Villalobos, 2000). Public Opinion Public opinion is essential to success of public diplomacy not only because it can create favorable or hostile diploma tic atmosphere in a target country but because it can affect a government’s fore ign policy decision-making. For the most part, a country’s image abroad can infl uence foreign publics’ stereotypes or preferences regardless of whether it is tr ue or not. How foreign publics understand or interpret other countries’ worldviews a nd ideologies can form a possible or an impossible environment for effective public diplomacy. Hertz ( 1981) claimed that

PAGE 26

14 “it is perhaps no exaggeration to say that today half of power politics consists of image making” (p. 187). He continued, “With the rising importance of publics in foreign affairs, image making has steadily in creased” (p. 187). Political leaders and government officials also acknowledge the power of attractive images and favorable foreign publics’ opinion in doing effective public diplomacy (Nye, 1990). In relation to public diplomacy’s succe ss or failure, Leona rd (2002) asserted the following: Public diplomacy should be about bu ilding relationships, starting from understanding other countries’ needs, cultures, and people and then looking for areas to make common cause. As the relationships deepen, public diplomacy can achieve a hierarchy of objectives: increasing familiarity (making people think about your countr y and updating their images of it); increasing appreciation (creating positiv e perceptions of your country and getting others to see issues from your perspective); engaging people (encouraging people to see your countr y as an attractive destination for tourism and study and encouraging them to buy its products and subscribe to its values); and influencing peopl e’s behavior (getting companies to invest, encouraging public support for your country’s positions, and convincing politicians to turn to it as an ally). (p. 50) Leonard (2002) also presented three dimensions of public diplomacy for successful and desirable outcomes: 1. Communication on day-to-day issues: So me of the stories that have the biggest impact abroad are not trad itional foreign policy stories that embassies are equipped to deal with but are domestic stories, such as the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain. Therefore, public diplomacy practitioners must monitor interna tional press coverage carefully and prepare to react promptly on a day-to-day basis. 2. Strategic communication: Strategic communication is like a political campaign, which develops a set of comprehensive messages and plans a series of symbolic events and phot o opportunities to reinforce them. 3. Developing lasting relationships with key individuals: These relationships are not built between diplomats and pe ople abroad, but built between every level of cross-national exchanges including scholarships, businesses, conferences, and access to media cha nnels. Conveying information across

PAGE 27

15 borders and understanding each other ar e key factors of this kind of longterm relationship building. (pp. 50-51) In sum, public diplomacy should be a central and important activity “that is played out across many dimensions and with many partners” (Leonard, 2002, p. 56). As a matter of fact, there have em erged unparalleled diplomatic activities based on this new paradigm of public di plomacy worldwide. For example, “both Arabs and Americans have developed negative opinions about each other, increasing the need for good public relati ons and public diplomacy between the two publics” (Hiebert, 2005, p. 319). Accord ing to the survey research done by Telhami (2002), only four percent of Sa udis, six percent of Jordanians and Moroccans, and 13 percent of Egyptians a ppeared to be favorable toward the United States. To deal with the deteriorat ing public opinion of the Middle East, the U.S. State Department changed the name of its Arabic radio broadcasting service from “Voice of America” to “Radio Sawa” (Radio together). Also, it changed its whole programs especially “aimed at th e young, who subliminally ingest news bulletins between blasts of Britney Spear s and the Backstreet Boys” (Leonard, 2002, p. 56). Vice versa, some Arab countries have done public relations initiatives to improve public opinion of the United States and their national images. Saudi Arabia singly “spent more than $5 m illion by the September 11 anniversary and hired prominent U.S. public relations firm s, law firms, consultants and a mediabuying firm” (Zhang & Benoit, 2004, p. 162). Public opinion abroad has been becoming one of the most decisive factors in public diplomacy.

PAGE 28

16 National Brand and Image-making toward Broadened Publics Molleda and Quinn (2004) asserted that “a national issue can become international in an instant, impacting hos t, home, and transnat ional publics” (p. 2). They continued, “Public relations profe ssionals practicing in more than one country are challenged by conflicts that impact their organizations’ or clients’ activities and reputation in mo re than one location at the same time.” In this sense, as Signitzer and Coombs (1992) argued, “governments are recognized as actors in international public relations” (p. 138). Zhang and Benoit (2004) claimed that “nations have images, and relations between countries have always been shaped by images” (p. 161). Also, “Image is still a central concept to th e field of public relations” (Benoit, 1997, p. 177). In fact, “perceptions are more important th an reality” (Benoit, 1997, p. 178). It is well known that “like any br and, nations have individual DNA or fingerprints that are unique unto themselv es–no two nations are alike” (Jaworski & Fosher, 2003, p. 100). Moreover, “human be ings live within brands and branded systems that shape the way they act, thi nk, and are perceived” (Jaworski & Fosher, 2003, p. 99). Therefore, public relations pr ofessionals concerning public diplomacy must have new ways of thinking about national brand and its importance. As Wakefield (2001) described, “all entities wh ether domestic or multinational, strive to preserve their reputations from internal and external threats. They all try to identify and build relationships with vital publics” (p. 642). In addition, it is important to note that today’s public diplomacy must deal with entire publics ra ther than limited number of gove rnment officials as traditional

PAGE 29

17 diplomacy did. For instance, because Mexico often disregarded general publics from their public diplomacy initiatives toward the United States, the U.S. publics did not think Mexico as savvy and stra tegic governments in the past (Johnson, 2005). Transnational NGOs, grassroots support organizations (GRSOs), and domestic grassroots organi zations (GSOs) are emergi ng publics in the area of public diplomacy as well. It is estim ated that 25,000 transnational NGOs, 50,000 GRSOs, and hundreds of thousands of GR Os are operating worldwide and still counting (Fisher, 2003). Those NGOs are cr ucial in terms of successful public diplomacy because they have “three key re sources not readily available to foreign governments: credibility, expertise, a nd appropriate networks” (Leonard, 2002, p. 54). Transnational NGOs and world gove rnments already collaborate with each other in working out many global issues, su ch as Latin America’s civil wars or Africa’s famine problems. All in all, today’s world governments and their public diplomacy initiatives must incorporate mu ch more broadened foreign publics than in the past. Propaganda and Public Diplomacy Due to aforementioned globalization a nd new technologies, mass media have become critical apparatuses, which help create a country’s international images. According to Kunczik (2003), “mass media reporting of foreign affairs often governs what kind of image of a country or culture has in another country” (p. 410). Moreover, media is recognized as one of the most important tools in the public diplomacy area in terms of providi ng related information to policymakers and mediating between governments a nd foreign publics (Malek, 2003). Thus,

PAGE 30

18 many public diplomacy practitioners are tr ying hard to make publicity through both domestic and international media, because it is a potent public relations tool to influence governments and public opinion (Lee, 2005). Besides, it is well known that media of ten play an important role in publics’ agenda-setting processes. According to Be rger (2001), “setting pr iorities and acting on an agenda of social issues are among the most important political activities undertaken within social systems, and ag enda setting may be conceptualized as active political participati on” (p. 92). He also assert ed that “mass media call attention to certain social issues and problems; this media agenda influences the public’s awareness of, and c oncerns about, such issues; in turn, the public agenda may influence the policy agenda a nd policy implementation” (p. 94). However, more often than not, public diplomacy activitie s through mass media have been suspiciously looked as propaganda (Gower, 2005). Manheim and Albritton (1984) warned the possibilit y of manipulation in disseminating information across national boundaries. They argued: Foreign affairs are generally unobtrusive. The public is unl ikely to have any direct experience with them. In the absence of direct personal contact, individuals’ images of th e actors and events on the international scene will be heavily, and unavoidably, media dependent. (p. 643) These tendencies of being too dependen t on media about foreign affairs and possible manipulation by governments or media often provoke aversion or even fear among general publics a bout public diplomacy ini tiatives. For example, the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FAR A) has stood still to “protect American democracy from the threat of fascism…to provide the government a means to track

PAGE 31

19 potential foreign propagandists in the c ountry…and to put its stamp of disapproval on ideological material” (Gower, 2005, pp. 38-39). Lasswell (1927) defined propaganda as follows: Propaganda refers solely to the contro l of opinion by significant symbols, or, to speak more concretely and less accurately, by stories, rumors, reports, pictures and other forms of social communication. Propaganda is concerned with the management of opinions and at titudes by the direct manipulation of social suggestion rather than by alteri ng other conditions in the environment or in the organism. (p. 9) The term “propaganda” usually implie s negative connotation because it often reminds people of wartime propaganda, whic h mainly focused on false statements and manipulation. By and large, people ha ve a certain level of fear grounded on the perception that propaganda often has been executed very deliberately with special purposes, and sometimes it is operated so c overtly that they do not notice if they are influenced by messages (Gower, 2005). However, not everyone sees only the malicious respects of propaganda. Stevens on (1994) speculated that “if propaganda is defined, minus the historical baggage, as an effort to inform and persuade, it takes on a less sinister connotation and em braces a range of activities that we consider normal and reasonable” (p. 346). It is true that today’s public diplomacy initiatives cannot entirely escape from the ghost of propaganda. As a matter of fact some countries are still disseminating propagandistic messages to foreign publics. Ne vertheless, it is also true that today’s world governments cannot control an d manipulate all information and communication as they did in the past. As mentioned earlier, “global media and technology have made public diplomacy an open communication forum” (Von Eschen, 2005, p. 337). To implement public diplomacy effectively, world

PAGE 32

20 governments should be aware of rapidly ch anging global situations and adjust themselves to the new paradigm. The following statement is worth being considered carefully by pub lic diplomacy practitioners: Lesson one in “Principles of Public Re lations” is to do right and report it. The truth always emerges, albeit ofte n too late to correct wrong-headed policies, but eventually truth does emerge. No one can put a permanent faade around a problem. No one can obs cure error indefinitely. If words mirror actions from the start, the rewa rds are enduring trust and credibility. (Spitzer, 2003, p. 9A) Internet Technology and Public Diplomacy To say again, globalization and new tec hnologies have changed today’s public diplomacy environment permanently. Peterson (2002) claimed: Globalization, the increased speed and gr eatly diminished cost of processing and transmitting information, the re ach of 24/7 television programming, global news media (AM, FM, and s hotwave radio, and satellite TV), growing Internet penetration, and ‘smart’ mobile phones are central characteristics of the twenty-first-century foreign policy environment…The information age has democratized communication by provi ding freedom of access to information, the ability to vo ice opinions, and the opportunity to enter debate. (n.p.) Perhaps, the Internet is the most c onspicuous technologica l advance in this information revolution era. So far, many studies concerning the correlation between Internet technol ogies and communication beha vioral changes in human society have been conducted. Public di plomacy and public relations areas are no exception. Brown and Studemeister (2003) argued that growing numbers of nonstate actors including NGOs, activist gr oups, and general citizens on the World Wide Web have asked nations’ foreign affairs ministries to provide more sophisticated and savvy communication a nd relationship building skills. Many world governments are already doing vi gorous communication and relationship

PAGE 33

21 building activities with foreign publics th rough the Internet. For example, “via its Web site, the foreign ministry of Israel—a n early adopter of the Internet—has been providing access to key speeches by Israeli l eaders and the full text of agreements and other important documents as well as ma ps in relation to th e Middle East peace process” (Brown & Studemeister, 2003, pp. 589-590). According to Anzinger (2002), there are more than 17,000 governmental institutions’ Web sites from more than 220 countries and territori es worldwide as of June 2002. Curtin and Gaither (2004) also stressed increasing importance of the Internet in public diplomacy. They pointed out th at “the public (the American public) obtained most of its information about dist ant lands from the news media, but in the last decade the World Wide Web ha s been credited with making the global local and with allowing information provi ders to bypass media gatekeepers” (pp. 25-26). They continued, “In the weeks following September 11, the public turned to government web sites in record numb ers for information on terrorism” (p. 26). They explored internatio nal agenda-building and communication processes on the Internet by content-analyzing some Middle Eastern governments’ Englishlanguage Web sites. Based on the results, th ey concluded that “more than half the countries in the Middle Ea st do not have official E nglish-language government sites and are missing out on a major inte rnational relations communication tool” (Curtin & Gaither, 2004, p. 32). Since Eng lish, which is used by 35.2 percent of total online population (Globa l Reach, 2004), is usually acce pted as the universal language of the Internet, governmental Web sites not having an English version are likely to have difficulty in reaching si gnificant number of Web-surfing foreign

PAGE 34

22 publics. In the mean time, those governmental Web sites, which offer an English version, generally provide good public dipl omacy information and solicit non-state actors to dialogic communications (Curtin & Gaither, 2004). However, their study is somewhat limited in articulating the comprehensive paradigm shift of public diplomacy in that only Middle Eastern count ries were analyzed. Therefore, further research with broader global scope is demanded. O’Connell (2005) hypothesized that world states can be authorized thei r sovereignty by their membership of the United Nations. On balance, based on the literature review, some the research questions of this study were drawn: RQ1: Among the 191 members of the United Nations, to what extent do governments provide public diplom acy Web sites to their publics? RQ2: Among the 191 members of the United Nations, to what extent do governments offer English-language ba sed public diplomacy Web sites to their publics? Realpolitik vs. Noopolitik It is undisputable that public diplomacy is in the middle of paradigm transition. The transition can be descri bed as from coercion to cooperation and from one-way information flow to two-way information flow. Ronfeldt and Arquilla (1999) predicte d there will be huge changes in the public diplomacy area, resulted from the information revolution. They argued that the diplomatic world has not been the subject of internal and external competition among countries so far, compared to the business and military worlds. However, “the diplomatic world is now beginning to feel the heat of competition, especially

PAGE 35

23 from agile nonstate actors that are being strengthened by the information revolution” (Ronfeldt & Ar quilla, 1999, n.p.). They exp ected so-called “netwar” will incorporate non-state actors, su ch as transnational NGOs, prominent individuals, and armed organizations in the realm of public diplomacy, and will require state governments to have interage ncy cooperation with those entities more than ever. World public diplomacy cannot escape from the extensive dynamics, which are “the dual shift in power (a) from large, hidebound actors to smaller, more agile ones, like NGOs; and (b) to actors, large or small, that can move from stand-alone to networked forms of or ganization and beha vior” (Ronfeldt & Arquilla, 1999, n.p.). In addition, Ronfeldt and Arquill a (1999) asserted the wane of realpolitik and the emergence of noopolitik According to Brown and Studemeister (2003), realpolitik represents “international system of sovereign nation-state in which strong ones exert control over ot hers in pursuit of their own national interests” (p. 585), whereas noopolitik implies “a statecraft that emphasizes the role of soft power in expressing ideas, values, norms, and ethics through all manner of media” (p. 585). Ronfeldt and Arquilla (1999) said that the information age will revolutionize classic diploma tic assumptions stemming from realpolitik and encourage the emergence of the new diplomacy paradigm based on noopolitik The emergence of noopolitik means not only active particip ation of non-state actors but an important role of dialogic communicat ion and relationship building via all kinds of communication channels.

PAGE 36

24 In recent years, realpolitik is facing growing limitati ons in public diplomacy. Ronfeldt and Arquilla (1999) pointed out the decrease of realpolitik value: It ( realpolitik ) works best where states fully rule the international system— but nonstate actors from the worlds of commerce and civil society are gaining strength and reshaping the global environment. It works best where states can maneuver freely and inde pendently—but complex transnational interconnections increasingly constrain this freedom. It works best where national interests dominate decision making—but a host of “global issues” is arising that transcends national in terests. It works best where states respond mainly to coercive calculati ons involving hard power—but state and nonstate actors are increasingly ope rating in terms of soft power. It works best where ethics matter little—but ethics ar e increasingly coming to the fore as global civil-society actor s gain a voice through all types of media.…Furthermore, realpolitik works best where diplomacy can be conducted mainly in the dark, away fr om public scrutiny, under strong state control, and without necessarily ha ving to share information with many actors—but the information revolution is making all that increasingly difficult and favors actors who can operate in the light and gain advantage from information sharing. (n.p.) On the other hand, they also presented favoring trends of noopolitik : 1. The growing web of global interc onnection: The era of global interdependence began 1960s, and ma ny trends its theorists emphasize continue to come true. Interdepe ndence was spurred by the rise of transnational and multinational actors, especially multinatio nal corporations and multilateral organizations. Now, a new generation of actors—such as news media, electronic communicat ions services, and human rights organizations—are increasingly “goi ng global,” some to the point of claiming that they are “stateless” and denying that they are “national” or “multinational” in character. They are redefining themselves as global actors with global agendas, and pursuing global expa nsion through ties with like-minded counterparts. 2. The continued strengthening of global civil-society actors: Because of the information revolution, advanced so cieties are on the threshold of developing a vast sensory apparatus fo r watching what is happening around the world. This may mean placing a pr emium on state-soci ety coordination, including the toleration of “citizen diplomacy” and the creation of “deep coalitions” between state and civil society actors. 3. The rise of soft power: Realpolitik allows for information strategy as a tool of propaganda, deception, and manipulation, but seems averse to accepting “knowledge projection” as amounti ng to a true tool of statecraft. However, for noopolitik to take hold, information will have to become a

PAGE 37

25 distinct dimension of grand strategy. Th e rise of soft power is essential for the emergence of the second path, and thus of noopolitik 4. The importance of “cooperative advant ages”: States and other actors seek to develop “comparative advantages” vis vis each other. This has mostly meant competitive advantages, especially when it comes to great-power rivalries conducted in terms of realpolitik But in the information age cooperative advantages will become ever more important. Indeed, societies that improve their abilities to cooperate with friends and allies may also gain competitive advantages against rivals. 5. The formation of the global noosphere : Noosphere represents a “web of living thought.” The impetus for creating a global noosphere is more likely to emanate from activist NGOs, other ci vil-society actors, and individuals dedicated to freedom of information and communications and to the spread of ethical values and norms. Noosphere is likely to encompass values, such as openness, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, humane behavior, respect for human rights, and a preference for peaceful conflict resolution. (n.p.) Based on the preceding literature review, the additional research questions and new hypotheses were drawn: RQ3: Among the members of the Un ited Nations providing an English version of public diplomacy Web site, to what extent do governments try to build dialogic relationships with their publics? H1: A political system of a state (democracy/not democracy) influences a quality of dialogic public relations st rategies through its public diplomacy Web site. H2: An economic scale of a state (GDP scale) influences a quality of dialogic public relations strategies through its pub lic diplomacy Web site. H3: A level of freedom of a state (free/partly free /not free) influences a quality of dialogic public relations st rategies through its public diplomacy Web site. RQ4: Among the members of the Un ited Nations providing an English version of public diplomacy Web site, to what extent do governments try to

PAGE 38

26 incorporate non-state actors, includi ng NGOs, civil-society groups, and individuals in dialogic relati onships through their Web sites? H4: A political system of a state (democracy/not democracy) influences a quality of non-state actor relations through its public diplomacy Web site. H5: An economic scale of a state (GDP scale) influences a quality of nonstate actor relations through its public diplomacy Web site. H6: A level of freedom of a state (free/partly free /not free) influences a quality of non-state actor relations through its public diplomacy Web site. RQ5: Among the members of the Un ited Nations providing an English version of public diplomacy Web site to what extent do governments deal with global issues, such as AIDS and human rights, through their Web sites? H7: A political system of a state (democracy/not democracy) influences a government’s level of concern abou t global issues through its public diplomacy Web site. H8: An economic scale of a state (GDP scale) influences a government’s level of concern about global issues through its public diplomacy Web site. H9: A level of freedom of a state (free/partly free /not free) influences a government’s level of concern abou t global issues through its public diplomacy Web site.

PAGE 39

27 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The content analysis method was used to explore the research questions and the hypotheses drawn by the pr eceding literature review. According to Kerlinger (2000), “content analysis is a method of studying and analyzing communication in a systematic, objective, and quantitativ e manner for the purpose of measuring variables” (as cited in Wimmer & Domi nick, 2003, p. 141). The method is suitable for this study because it is one of the most effective approaches to analyze contents of media (Wimmer & Dominick, 2003). More over, McMillan (2000) asserted that even in the Internet context differing from traditional media, such as newspapers and televisions, the method can be useful in analyzing data and contents. Previous studies concerning media and public diplomacy activities were mainly based on the content analysis method as well (e.g., Curtin & Gaither, 2004; Johnson, 2005). Research Design and Data Collection To achieve the ultimate goals of th e study, government Web sites of the 191 countries, which are the members of the United Nations, were examined as the main research subjects of the study. Only foreign affairs ministry Web sites, foreign embassy Web sites, or presidentia l Web sites were regarded as relevant “public diplomacy Web sites” in this study, because those institutions are central in public diplomacy. The research priority was given in order of foreign affairs ministry Web sites, foreign embassy Web sites, and presidential Web sites. For example, if a country had a ll of those three governmental Web sites, only a foreign

PAGE 40

28 affairs ministry Web site was examined, and other governmental Web sites were excluded, because usually a foreign affairs ministry is recognized as a principal institution of public diplomacy. If a country did not have a foreign affairs ministry Web site, but have a foreign embassy Web s ite, then that foreign embassy Web site was the unit of analysis for that country. If a country had multiple foreign embassy Web sites, the unit of analysis was chos en randomly. Finally, if a country did not have any Web site mentioned above, that country was regarded as not providing governmental Web sites in relation to public diplomacy for publics. The Internet data base, Governments on the WWW (http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/) was used as the main source of this study to identify world governments’ Web sites. Gunnar Anzinger, the establisher of the data base, has updated almost all govern ment-related Web sites worldwide as of June 26, 2002. The researcher believed this Web site is one of the most comprehensive and up-to-date sources rega rding world governments’ Web sites. In case that the Internet data base did not seem to have the most recent links of governments’ Web sites, Web searches through the Google were accompanied. Finally, secondary research, which is mainly concerned with a country’s political (political status), economic (economic scale), and cultural (freedom) variables, was taken into account to ma ke a comparative analysis possible among world governments. Statistical data from credible institutions comprised the secondary research. The researcher referre d to the world governments’ status index from the Nationmaster.com for the countries’ political systems, and used the 2004 World Bank statistics in terms of the s ubject countries’ GDPs. In addition, for

PAGE 41

29 freedom levels of the countries, the res earcher cited the “Freedom in the world 2006” index of the Freedom House. Theoretical Foundation of the Coding Instrument The coding instrument of the analysis was designed mainly based on the three previous studies (Kent & Taylor, 1998; Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001; Curtin & Gaither, 2004). First of all, in 1998, Kent and Tayl or offered important public relations strategies in terms of creati ng dialogic relationships with Internet publics. Kent and Taylor (1998) contended: …Internet communication can include the “personal touch” that makes public relations effective…entire “c ommunities” of diasporic groups are located in “cyberspace.” These publics who constitute (often-times global) communities unto themselves might othe rwise remain disparate were it not for the Internet and the WWW. Thus, the Internet may be one of the only ways to reach traditionally isolated publics. (p. 323) Kent and Taylor (1998) also argued the importance of dialogic communication in relationship building. Based on the prev ious dialogue-related discourse including ideas of Karlberg, Buber, Habermas, and Johannesen, Kent & Taylor (1998) asserted that “As a dialogic medium, the Internet may be view ed as a ‘convivial tool’” (p. 324). In addition, they concl uded the following five principles for the effective dialogic relationshi p building through a Web site: 1. The dialogic loop: A dialogic loop allows publics to que ry organizations and, more importantly, it offers orga nizations the opportunity to respond questions, concerns and problems. 2. The usefulness of information: Informational efforts can provide Web site visitors with contact addresses, telephone numbers, and electronic-mail address of organizational members, external experts, share holders, and those holding valid competing/contradi ctory positions. Information is made available to publics not to stifle debate or win their accent, but to allow them to engage an organization in dialogue as an informed partner.

PAGE 42

30 3. The generation of return visits: Site s should contain features that make them attractive for repeat visits such as updated information, changing issues, special forums, new commen taries, on-line question and answer sessions, and on-line “experts” to answer questions fo r interested visitors. 4. The intuitiveness/ease of the interf ace: A great deal of a Web site’s content should be textual rather than graphical—text loads faster than graphics, and well typeset pages can actually be mo re effective attention getters than a gra phic that takes 30 seconds to load. 5. The rule of conservation of visitors: Web sites should include only “essential links” with clearly marked path s for visitors to return to your site. (pp. 326-331) Along with the same line with the aforementioned study, Taylor, Kent, and White (2001) proposed the methodological guidelines in te rms of dialogic relationship building through a Web site: 1. Ease of interface is facilitated by: ha ving site maps (or links to site maps) clearly identifiable on a home page; ensu ring that major links to the rest of the site are clearly identified on th e home page; incorporating a search engine box (or a link to a search box) on home pages; creating image maps that are self-explanatory; and incorp orating minimal graphic reliance into site design. 2. Usefulness of information is facili tated by: press releases, speeches, downloadable graphics, clear statemen t about organizational positions on policy issues…statements on the philosophy and mission of the organization…links to relevant po litical leaders making it easy for interested individuals to expr ess their opinions on issues. 3. Conservation of visitors is facili tated by: the presence of important information (or organizational message s) on the first page; the amount of time that the site loaded on a medi um speed, networked computer; and a clear posting of the date and time the site was last updated. 4. Generation of return visits is fac ilitated by: providing links to other Web sites; appealing to visitors with explicit statements inviting them to return; encouraging visitors to “bookmark this page now” to facilitate easy return; the announcement of regularly scheduled news forums; providing visitors with question and answer forums;… offering visitors downloadable and regularly updated, information; offeri ng visitors information that can be automatically delivered through regular mail or e-mail; and the posting of news stories within the last 30 days. 5. Dialogic loop is facilitated by: oppor tunities for visitors to send messages to the organization; opportunities for individuals to vote on issues; the option to request regular information upda tes; and the option for visitors to fill out surveys identifying priorities and expressing opinions on issues. (pp. 269-271)

PAGE 43

31 Finally, Curtin and Gaither (2004) provided the critical methodology foundation for this research. Curtin and Gaither (2004) analyzed “all available English-language government and presiden tial web sites in th e Middle East…” (p. 28). Based on their previous study, it is justifiable to compare foreign affairs ministry Web sites, foreign embassy Web sites, and presidential Web sites as a nation’s official Web sites for public di plomacy and foreign relationship building. Also, in relation to RQ4 and RQ5, the le vel of prominence about each subject (nonstate actors and global issue) was measured within three or less “clicks” from the main page: 1 = main page, 2 = one click from the main page, and 3 = two clicks from the main page (Yeon, 2005). Pretest and Coder Training In terms of the coding process, two coders, including the researcher and another graduate student filled out the coding instrument respectively. To set the coding instrument and code book in good or der, a pretest was conducted with 10 percent of the research samples, whic h equals 19 countries’ governmental Web sites. Those pretest samples were rand omly selected among the 191 UN-affiliated countries. The researcher used the Holsti’s reliability method (1969) to measure intercoder reliability of the coding instru ment. After resolving few disagreements between the coders, intercoder reliabi lity of each categories of the coding instrument ranged from .711 to .921, and th e overall intercoder re liability of the coding instrument reached .787.

PAGE 44

32 Data Analysis The Statistical Package for the Soci al Sciences (SPSS 12.0 for Windows) was utilized to content-analyze the subjec ts of the study. As for RQ1 and RQ2, frequencies statistics were conducted, becau se those questions mainly dealt with the presence of the countri es’ governmental Web sites. As for RQ3, frequencies statistics were implemented to analyze presence of dialogic features, which were based on Taylor, Kent, and White’s previ ous study (2001). To verify H1, H2, and H3, Multiple Linear Regression tests were conducted to analyze the level of influence of each independent variable (a country’s political system, economic scale, and level of freedom) on the dependent variable, which is a quality of dialogic relationship building strate gies through a governmental Web site. Regarding the RQ4 and RQ5, frequencies statistics were implemented to measure the degree of world governments’ efforts on relationship buildi ng with non-state actors and global issues respectively. As for H4, H5, and H6, Multiple Linear Regression tests were conduc ted as well. Finally, to verify H7, H8, and H9, Multinominal Logistic Regression tests were utilized, because the dependent variable of each hypothesis (a country’s statement rega rding global issues through its public diplomacy Web site) has nominal value (presence/absence).

PAGE 45

33 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This study basically aims to explore th e five research questions and nine hypotheses. Content analyses of the 191 member countries of the United Nations were conducted to examine the research que stions and to test a set of hypotheses. The rest of the chapter summarizes the research results. Research Question 1 Research question one inqui res the extent of pres ence of governmental Web sites regarding public diplomacy among the 191 UN member countries. According to the frequencies statistics draw n from the Internet database, Governments on the WWW (http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/), and the Web search engine ( Google ) references, 166 countries (86.9 %) manage governmental Web sites relevant to public diplomacy activities, whereas 25 countries (13.1 %) do not have any governmental Web site satisfying the cr iterion (see Figure 4-1). Countries not providing any relevant public diplomacy Web sites are as follows: Bhutan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Democra tic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Djibuti, Equatorial Guinea, Er itrea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Micronesia, Naur u, Niger, Oman, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Seychelles, Somalia, Syri an Arab Republic, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tunisia, and Vanuatu.

PAGE 46

34 Public diplomacy Web sites' absence/presence Absence Presence Figure 4-1. Public Diplomacy Web Sites’ Absence/Presence Analyzing the number of public diplomacy Web sites (foreign affairs ministry Web site, foreign embassy Web site, and presidential Web site) that a country has on average among the 166 UN member countries providing relevant Web sites, the mean value was 2.02 (SD = .77). In othe r words, world’s 166 countries are maintaining slightly over two public diplom acy Web sites on average. As shown in Table 4-1, 47 countries (28.3 %) have onl y one public diplomacy Web site, 69 166 countries (86.9%) 25 countries (13.1%)

PAGE 47

35 countries (41.6 %) have two public diplom acy Web sites, and 50 countries (30.1 %) have all three relevant Web sites. Table 4-1. Number of Public Diplomacy Web Sites Utilized by Each Country Number of sites Number of countries Percent One Web site 4728.3 Two Web sites 6941.6 Three Web sites 5030.1 Total 166100.0 According to the aforementioned research protocol of the study and Web sites’ availability of a country, 88 foreign affair s ministry Web sites (53.0 %), 77 foreign embassy Web sites (46.4 %), and one presiden tial Web site (0.6 %) were analyzed for the study (see Table 4-2). Table 4-2. Number of Analyzed We b Site by a Type of Organization Type of organization Frequency Percent Foreign affairs ministry Web site 88 53.0 Foreign embassy Web site 77 46.4 Presidential Web site 1 .6 Total 166 100.0 Research Question 2 Research question two asks whether or not the UN member countries offer an English version public diplomacy Web site s. Web searches through the Internet database, Governments on the WWW and the Web search engine Google resulted on 154 countries (80.6 %) provide English ve rsion of public diplomacy Web sites to their publics. In addition, 12 countries (6.3 %) do not provide English Web sites, while they have relevant public diplom acy Web sites on the Internet under their foreign affairs ministries, embassies, or presidential offices (see Figure 4-2). The following 12 countries do not provide E nglish public diplomacy Web sites:

PAGE 48

36 Algeria, Benin, Bolivia, Comoros, C ongo, Gabon, Mali, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Senegal, Tajikistan, and Togo. Absence/presence of English version Web site Absence Presence Figure 4-2. Absence/Presence of English Version Web Site Research Question 3 Research question three deals with the ex tent of dialogic relationship building strategies utilized by world countries through their public di plomacy Web sites. The extent of dialogic relationship bu ilding strategies of each country was measured by the number of dialogic relati onship building features (total of 25 items), suggested by Taylor, Kent, and White (2001). 12 countries (7.2%) 154 countries (92.8%)

PAGE 49

37 The mean score of dialogic relati onship building features utilized by 154 world countries’ public diplomacy Web sites in which English version is available was 12.3 (SD = 4.29) and the median was 13. Th e foreign affairs ministry Web site of Croatia was the most sophisticated public diplomacy Web site in terms of dialogic relationship building strategies w ith 21 features out of 25. On the contrary, the Embassy of Pakistan in Seoul, Republic of Korea Web site applied only one dialogic relationship building strategy (major links to rest of the site). 0.005.0010.0015.0020.00Number of items 0 10 20 30 40Number of countries Mean = 12.3117 Std. Dev. = 4.29549 N = 154 Figure 4-3 The Histogram of Web Site Di alogic Relationship Building Strategies

PAGE 50

38 Classifying each category of dialogic rela tionship building strategies (ease of interface, usefulness of information to pub lics, conservation of visitors, return visits, and dialogic loop), wo rld countries have the average of 2.7 items (SD = .08) out of four regarding ease of interface, the average of 2.7 items (SD = .10) out of five regarding usefulness of information to publics, the averag e of 2.0 items (SD = .08) out of three regarding conservation of visitors, the average of 3.8 items (SD = .13) out of nine regarding return visits, and the average of 1.1 items (SD = .05) out of four regarding dialogic loop. Table 4-3. Occurrence of Dialogic Rela tionship Building Items (in order of frequencies) Category Number of countries Percent Major link to rest of the site 153 99.4 Links to other Web sites 144 93.5 Short loading time (less than four seconds) 136 88.3 Opportunity for user-response 136 88.3 Downloadable graphics 130 84.4 Things that can be requested by mail or e-mail 129 83.8 Low reliance on graphics 127 82.5 Downloadable information 111 72.1 Press releases 109 70.8 Speeches 99 64.3 Important info available on 1st page 94 61.0 Posting of last updated time and date 79 51.3 Search engine box 76 49.4 Posting news stories within 15 days 65 42.2 Site map 60 39.0 Explicit statement invites user to return 60 39.0 Links to political leaders 41 26.6 FAQ’s or Q & A’s 38 24.7 Audio/Visual capacity 37 24.0 Calendar of events 32 20.8 Offers regular information through e-mail 25 16.2 Bookmark now 6 3.9 News forum (regularly scheduled) 5 3.2 Opportunity to vote on issues 2 1.3 Survey to voice opinion on issues 2 1.3

PAGE 51

39 Research Question 4 Research question four asks the exte nt of dialogic relationship building strategies with non-state actors, such as NGOs, multinational corporations, and individuals, utilized by wo rld countries through their publ ic diplomacy Web sites. When analyzing the level of prominence of non-state actor rela tions through world countries’ public diplomacy Web sites, eight countries (5.2 %) have related information on their first page of the Web sites, 100 countries (64.9 %) have related information on their second layer of the Web sites, 16 countries (10.4 %) have related information on their third or more layer of the Web sites, and 30 countries (19.5 %) do not provide any rele vant information regarding non-state actors (see Figure 4-4). 1st layer2nd layer3rd or morenoneLevel of prominence 0 20 40 60 80 100Number of countries Figure 4-4. The Bar Chart of Non-state Actor Relations Information Prominence

PAGE 52

40 In terms of world countries’ dialogic relationship building strategies with nonstate actors, the extent of dialogic rela tionship building strategies of each country was measured by the number of dialogic re lationship building f eatures (total of seven items) in non-state actor relate d pages. The mean score of dialogic relationship building features with non-st ate actors utilized by world countries’ public diplomacy Web sites was 1.32 (SD = 1.24) and the median was 1.0. Fiftythree countries (34.4 %) do not provide any dialogic rela tionship building items to non-state actors, 39 countries (25.3 %) have one item, 28 countries (18.2 %) have two items, 29 countries (18.8 %) have three it ems, four countries (2.6 %) have four items, and only one country (0.6 %), which is the United States of America, has five dialogic relationship bu ilding items (see Table 4-4). Table 4-4. Frequencies of Non-state Actor Dialogic Relationship Building Features Number of dialogic relati onship building features Numb er of countries Percent None 53 34.4 1 39 25.3 2 28 18.2 3 29 18.8 4 4 2.6 5 1 .6 Total 154 100.0

PAGE 53

41 0.001.002.003.004.005.00Number of items 0 10 20 30 40 50 60Number of countries Mean = 1.3182 Std. Dev. = 1.23513 N = 154 Figure 4-5. The Histogram of Non-state Actor Dialogic Relationship Building Strategies In addition, when analyzing frequencies of each dialogic relationship building item utilized by world countries’ public diplomacy Web sites, an e-mail address or link was the most frequently used feature (see Table 4-5). Table 4-5. Occurrence of Non-state Acto r Dialogic Relationship Building Items Category Number of countries Percent E-mail address 91 59.1 Viewer choice 60 39.0 Search engine box 42 27.3 Bulletin board 8 5.2 Chat room 2 1.3 Blog 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0

PAGE 54

42 Research Question 5 Research question five asks the extent of world governments’ awareness and concern regarding global issues through th eir public diplomacy Web sites. The analysis revealed that 86 countries (5 5.8 %) do not present their appreciation of immediate global issues, whereas 68 count ries (44.2 %) deal with global issue discourse through their public diplom acy Web sites (see Figure 4-6). Global issue statement Absence Presence Figure 4-6. Absence/Presence of Global Issue Concern Furthermore, the analysis in relation to the level of global issue prominence revealed that among 68 countries demonstrat ing their concern a bout global issues 86 countries (55.8 %) 68 countries (44.2 %)

PAGE 55

43 through their public diplomacy Web sites, six countri es (8.8 %) have related information on the first page of the Web sites, 37 countries (54.4 %) have related information on the second page of the Web sites, and 25 countries (36.8 %) have related information on the third or more page of the Web sites (see Figure 4-7). 1st layer2nd layer3rd or morenoneLevel of prominence 0 20 40 60 80 100Number of countries Figure 4-7. The Bar Chart of Globa l Issue Information Prominence Hypothesis 1, 2, and 3 Hypothesis 1, 2, and 3 mainly aim to te st correlations between a country’s political status, economic scale, and leve l of freedom and its extent of overall dialogic relationship building strategy application through pu blic diplomacy Web

PAGE 56

44 site respectively. Among 154 world countries providing relevant English-language based public diplomacy Web sites, eight countries (Andorra, Brunei, Cuba, Iraq, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Myanmar, and Tuva lu) were excluded from the analysis due to their unavailability of GDP data The Multiple Linear Regression method was used to support or rej ect the assumed hypotheses. The regression model was significant (F (3, 146) = 9.013, p = .000) with 99 percent confidence. Also, based on the R square value of the model, all independent variables, which are a country ’s political status, economic scale, and level of freedom, have 16 percent of e xplanation power to the variance of the extent of overall dialogic relationship bu ilding strategies through public diplomacy Web sites (see Table 4-6). Table 4-6. The Regression Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .400(a) .160 .142 3.98840 (a) Predictors: (Constant), Freedom, Economic, Political Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 430.117 3 143.372 9.013 .000(a) Residual 2258.842 142 15.907 Total 2688.959 145 (a) Predictors: (Constant), Freedom, Economic, Political Table 4-7. Coefficients (H1 through H3) Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 7.399 2.650 2.792 .006 Political .548 1.083 .057 .506 .614 Economic .000 .000 .251 3.223 .002 Freedom 1.736 .626 .314 2.772 .006

PAGE 57

45 In addition, the coefficients of each i ndependent variable revealed that a country’s economic scale and level of fr eedom have significant influence on its overall dialogic relations hip building strategies th rough a public diplomacy Web site, whereas political status is not significantly correlate d with a country’s level of dialogic relationship building strategy a pplication with 99 pe rcent confidence (see Table 4-7). In sum, H1, “A political system of a state (democracy/not democracy) influences a quality of dialogic public relations st rategies through its public diplomacy Web site” was rejected, while H2, “An economic scale of a state (GDP scale) influences a quality of dialogic pub lic relations strategies through its public diplomacy Web site” and H3, “A level of freedom of a state (f ree/partly free/not free) influences a quality of dialogic public relations strategies through its public diplomacy Web site” were supported based on the statistical results. Hypothesis 4, 5, and 6 Hypothesis 4, 5, and 6 are to examine correlations between a country’s political status, economic scale, and leve l of freedom and its extent of dialogic relationship building strategy utilization with non-state actors, such as NGOs, multinational corporations, and individua ls. One hundred and forty six UN member countries were analyzed as well as H ypothesis 1, 2, and 3, because of the missing data of eight countries’ GDP scale. Als o, the Multiple Linear Regression method was utilized to test statistical significance between variables. The regression model turned out to be valid (F (3, 146) = 11.517, p = .000), along with almost 20 percent of explana tion power of the independent variables (political status, economic scale, and le vel of freedom) to the variance of the

PAGE 58

46 dependent variable (extent of dialogic relationship building strategies with nonstate actors) (see Table 4-8). Table 4-8. The Regression Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .442(a) .196 .179 1.12579 (a) Predictors: (Constant), Freedom, Economic, Political Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 43.790 3 14.597 11.517 .000(a) Residual 179.970 142 1.267 Total 223.760 145 (a) Predictors: (Constant), Freedom, Economic, Political Table 4-9. Coefficients (H4 through H6) Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) -.709 .748 -.948 .345 Political .564 .306 .203 1.845 .067 Economic .000 .000 .347 4.554 .000 Freedom .537 .177 .336 3.036 .003 Taking into consideration of the coeffici ents of each independent variable, a country’s economic scale and level of fr eedom have significant influence on its level of dialogic relationsh ip building strate gies with non-state actors with 99 percent confidence. However, political status is still not significant in relation to a country’s level of dialogic relationship building strategy application (see Table 49). Therefore, H4, “A political system of a state (democracy/not democracy) influences a quality of non-state actor relations through its public diplomacy Web site.” was not supported. On the other hand, H5, “An economic scale of a state (GDP scale) influences a quality of nonstate actor relations through its public diplomacy Web site” and H6, “A level of freedom of a state (f ree/partly free/not

PAGE 59

47 free) influences a quality of non-state act or relations through its public diplomacy Web site” were statistically supported. Hypothesis 7, 8, and 9 Hypothesis 7, 8, and 9 aim to verify corre lations between a c ountry’s political status, economic scale, and level of freedom and its extent of concern about global issues through public diplomacy Web site respectively. Also, 146 UN member countries were analyzed for the statistical test. In terms of statistical methodology, the Multinominal Logistic Regression method was conducted because the dependent variable (a government’s le vel of concern about global issues) was coded with nominal value (absence/presence). The regression model for hypothesis 7, 8, and 9 was significant with 99 percent confidence ( 2 (3, 146) = 35.040, p = .000) (see Table 4-10). Table 4-10. The Regression Model Summary Model -2 Log Likelihood Chi-Square df Sig. Intercept Only 200.642 Final 165.602 35.040 3 .000 Furthermore, according to the coefficients (Wald statistics) of each independent variable, a count ry’s economic scale has si gnificant influence on its extent of concern regardi ng global issues through public diplomacy Web site with 99 percent confidence, whereas a country’s political status and level of freedom are not significant predic tors in explaining the likeli hood of a country’s global issue care (see Table 4-11). On balance, H 7, “A political sy stem of a state (democracy/not democracy) influences a government’s level of concern about global issues through its public diplomacy Web site” and H9, “A level of freedom

PAGE 60

48 of a state (free/partly free /not free) influences a government’s level of concern about global issues throu gh its public diplomacy Web site” were rejected. However, H8, “An economic scale of a state (GDP scale) influences a government’s level of concern about gl obal issues through its public diplomacy Web site” was sustained. Table 4-11. Coefficients (H7 through H9) Global(a) B Std. Error Wald df Sig. Absence Intercept 3.294 1.531 4.628 1 .031 Political -.991 .606 2.674 1 .102 Economic .000 .000 10.960 1 .001 Freedom -.518 .360 2.071 1 .150 (a) The reference category is: Presence.

PAGE 61

49 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Current Status of World Countries’ Public Diplomacy Web Sites As assumed earlier, it seems world countries are desirably adjusting themselves to the new paradigm of public diplomacy, keeping pace with globalization and technologi cal developments. Almost 87 percent (166 countries) of the 191 UN member countries maintains relevant public diplomacy Web sites. Including quasi-public diplomacy Web sites, such as mini stry of tourism Web sites or ministry of internationa l investments Web sites, the percentage would be higher. Therefore, it is reaffirmed that world count ries, which should be active participants of international public diplomacy, also recognize the importan ce and value of Web communication in building relationships with foreign governments and publics. Moreover, due to relatively small expe nses in managing Web sites, it seems a large number of world countries have more than two relevant public diplomacy Web sites, which means more communica tion and relationship building channels both for world governments and concerned publics. In view of 25 countries among the UN members, not providing relevant publ ic diplomacy Web sites, a country’s decisive factors in the ab sence of public diplomacy Web sites could be social unrest (e.g., Burundi, Liberia, Somalia, Ti mor-Leste), dictatorship (e.g., Central African Republic, North Korea, Eritrea, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Syrian Arab Republic), poor economic condition (e.g., B hutan, Guinea, Niger), or lack of infrastructure (e.g., Micronesia, Saint Lucia, Seychelles).

PAGE 62

50 Meanwhile, among the 191 UN member c ountries, almost 81 percent (154 countries) of world countries accomm odate English-language based public diplomacy Web sites. Considering English is one of the most used international languages, especially in terms of dipl omatic relations, th e frequencies are somewhat favorable. Among 166 world count ries maintaining relevant public diplomacy Web sites, only 12 countries do not provide English-language based Web sites. With respect to those 12 count ries’ historical prof iles (Algeria, Benin, Bolivia, Comoros, Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Mali, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Senegal, Tajikistan, and Togo), one of th e significant factors in their absence of English-language based Web sites could be their colonial ti es and subsequent official languages (mostly French and Span ish). Nevertheless, it is inexcusable for them not to provide English-language base d public diplomacy Web sites, in that not only even France and Spain, which once we re their colonial rulers, utilize the English version of public diplomacy Web s ites, but also they isolate themselves from English-speaking foreign publics in terms of providing relevant information and building relationships. Again, the new paradigm of public diplomacy requires world countries to have diffe rent ways of thinking in terms of relationship building with a broadened spectrum of publics, such as transnational NGOs, multinational corporations, and individuals, let alone sovereign states. Ab sence and lack of viewer-friendly environment of public diplomacy Web sites could be huge hindrance to communicating and buildi ng relationships with such dynamic constituents of today’s intern ational diplomatic relations.

PAGE 63

51 Dialogic Relationship Build ing in Public Diplomacy Dialogic communication is fundament al to developing and promoting relationships among different entities. H eath (2001) argued that publics judge each other’s standpoints and values base d on exchanges of statement and counterstatement, which compose dialogues. Especially, when it comes to the Internet, both organizations and publics can take advantage of the dialogic nature of the medium in relation to communicati ng and developing rela tionships with one another. The content analysis of world countries ’ public diplomacy Web sites revealed that governments are utilizing and providing dialogic relationship building features relatively well through their public diplomacy Web sites. On average, 154 world countries, managing English-language base d public diplomacy Web sites, have slightly over 12 dialogue promoting feat ures on their Web s ites out of the 25 features, suggested by Taylor, Kent, and White (2001). In addition, the histogram of world countries’ Web site dialogic rela tionship building strate gies (see Graph 43), which is slightly skewed to the right confirms the rationale is justifiable. Considering the frequencies of each di alogic relationship building feature, world countries still need to improve thei r public diplomacy Web sites in terms of “search engine box” (49.4 %), “posting ne ws stories within 15 days” (42.2 %), “links to political leaders” (26.6 %), “audio/visual capac ity” (24 %), “calendar of events” (20.8 %), “offer of regular information through e-mail” (16.2 %), “bookmark now” (3.9 %), “regularly scheduled news forum” (3.2 %), “opportunity to vote on issues” (1.3 %), and “survey to voice opinion on issues” (1.3 %). In

PAGE 64

52 particular, as a part of p ublic relations efforts to attract world publics to healthy dialogues and to promote mutually benefi cial relationships with them, world governments should complement Web site fe atures related to the dialogic loop, such as “opportunity to vote on issues ,” “survey to voice opinion on issues,” and “offer of regular information through e-mail.” Meanwhile, the statistical tests to va lidate correlations between a nation’s political, economic, and cultu ral variables and its level of dialogic relationship building strategies through a public diplom acy Web site revealed that a country’s economic scale and level of freedom are si gnificant predictors of its level of dialogic relationship building efforts, in other words, quality of relationship management with world publics through the Internet medium. As mentioned earlier, due to the paradigm shift in world politics based on “soft power,” a country’s economic scale has been much more important in explaining a country’s diplomatic capacity. Vice vers a, successful diplomacy and mutually beneficial relationships with global actors have become mu ch more critical factors in a country’s economic prosperity as we ll in this globalization age. Without a doubt, today’s international power dynami cs are controlled by the logic of “political economy,” which compounds politics and economics in relation to allocation of limited resources of the wo rld (Viotti & Kauppi, 2001). However, this correlation between a country’s economic scale and its public diplomacy capacity may aggravate the “north-south divide” si tuation among world countries. As poorer countries are marginalized from the center of international diplomacy, they tend to have less economic benefits in the global setting. Considering that the Internet

PAGE 65

53 medium has enormous communication power to reach publics with relatively small expenses, and it also has democra tic tendencies encouraging two-way communication, poorer countries should pa y much more attention to Web public diplomacy not to fall behind in the global competition. The level of freedom of each country also influences a country’s public diplomacy quality and capacity regardi ng the extent of dialogic relationship building strategies through public diplom acy Web sites. This result can be explained in two ways, which are base d on internal and external motives respectively. Firstly, it seems countries that are not tolerant about much freedom of their citizens tend to be re luctant to make dialogic re lationships with either domestic publics or international publics. Reasons for this tendency could be various, to name a few, religious ideologi es, social unrest, or political oppression. There are still a number of countries in the world that even regul ate or limit use of the Internet to some extent. To them, free exchange of ideas and free communication are intolerable and unfa vorable, not to mention dialogic relationship building. Secondly, most countries that are partly free or not free tend to have external problems in terms of international relationships, for example, conflict with neighbor countri es, involvement in intern ational crimes, such as terrorism, and unjustifiable political regi me, such as brutal dictatorship. Sometimes, open communication and nego tiation with global actors, including other nations, internationa l organizations, and transn ational NGOs are not an option for them to solve those complicated problems. They tend to block any communication flow either from inside or from outside. After all, it seems

PAGE 66

54 openness and mutual understa nding with concerned pub lics is the key to the excellent public diplomacy as much as they are to public relations. On the other hand, political status of a country does not seem to be a significant factor in explaini ng a country’s dialogic rela tionship building quality in public diplomacy. At a glance, this result looks odd because it is commonsense that a country’s political status significantly affects its whole social structures (Sriramesh & Vercic, 2003), and conse quently has an influence on its public diplomacy approaches and behavior. Howeve r, this result obviously clarifies the new paradigm of world politics and public diplomacy. After the cessation of the “Cold War,” in other words, the collap se of communism, the world has changed from a marketplace of ideol ogy to a marketplace of economy. Even if a country is not based on true democracy, it should activ ely participate in public diplomacy and global public relations as a whole to comp ete successfully in this global war of trade and economy. For example, the Ministry of foreign affairs of China maintains the very sophisticated Web site and pr ovides 16 dialogic re lationship building features, which are relativel y favorable, even though its political status is still recognized as dictatorship. On that acc ount, a country’s motivation to excellent public diplomacy comes from economic concer ns rather than political ideologies. Furthermore, because of the increas ingly intense competition among world countries in terms of economic issues, savvier and more broadened relationship building strategies are necessary in the field of public diplomacy.

PAGE 67

55 Non-State Actor Relation s in Public Diplomacy As stated above, one of the notable aspects of the new paradigm of public diplomacy is the call for broadened relati onship building with non-state actors, who used to be excluded from consideration of world politics and public diplomacy. For the last few decades, many experts have poi nted out the rise of non-state actors and the decline of nation-states in terms of world power dynamics and increasing rights and duties of non-state actors given by inte rnational agreements (O’Connell, 2005). Therefore, positive and mutually benefici al relationship building with non-state actors has become critical to success of public diplomacy. The analysis showed that world countries are inte rested in building relations hips with non-state actors, especially, tourists, international invest ors, multinational corporations, foreign correspondents, transnational NGOs, and foreign students, to name a few. However, the analysis also revealed that world countri es’ non-state actor relations through public diplomacy Web site s still have more room to improve. First of all, only 124 countri es (64.9 %) of the UN member countries have direct and clear information accommodating non-state actors on their Web sites. Moreover, only eight countries place non-st ate actor related info rmation on the first page of their Web sites, whereas 100 c ountries have it on the second page, and 16 countries have it on the third or more page. World countries’ dialogic relationship bu ilding efforts with non-state actors are even worse. Only 101 countries ( 52.8 %) of the UN member countries provide one or more dialogic relationship buil ding features, specifically designed to nonstate actors. The histogram of world countries’ dialogic re lationship building

PAGE 68

56 strategies with non-state actor s (see Graph 4-5), which is extremely skewed to the left, also shows the inadequacy. The most frequently utilized dial ogic relationship building item was “e-mail address” (59.1 %), followed by “viewer choice” (39 %) and “search engine box” (27.3 %). However, more active and tw o-way communication tools, such as “bulletin board” (5.2 %), “chat room” (1.3 %), and “blog” (0 %), were utilized very rarely. Considering that non-state actors, who visit public dipl omacy Web sites to seek relevant information and communication, are likely “active” publics, according to J. Grunig’s classification of publics based on the situational theory (J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984; J. Grunig, 1989), worl d countries should more care about non-state actors and should incorporate th em into mutually beneficial dialogues. The analysis and subsequent statistica l verification revealed that a country’s economic scale and level of freedom are si gnificant pred ictors of its level of nonstate actor relations as well. By the same token, political status of a country turned out to be not significant in explaining its level of non-state ac tor relations. Again, bigger economic scale and subsequent dr ive for economic prosperity makes world countries more concerned about diverse relationship building and management. In addition, the more a country admits fr eedom, which means a more open society, the more a country is willing to solici t various publics to their policy decisionmaking discourse.

PAGE 69

57 Global Issue Management in Public Diplomacy “Social responsibility” and “corporate citizenship” have become buzzwords in the corporate sector, due to increasing c onsensus of mutual benefits and ethical standards for corporations within society. Likewise, “g lobal responsibility” and “international citizenship” are important fo r nation-states to coexist with each other mutually beneficially and cooperate with each other ethically responsibly. The research question and hypotheses of this study, rega rding global issue management in Web public diplomacy starte d from the previously stated rationale. The analysis revealed that among 154 countries maintaining English-language based public diplomacy Web sites, only 68 countries (44.2 %) showed their national care about global issues at hand. In addition, only six countries place global issue information on the first page of their Web sites, whereas 37 countries have it on the second page and 25 countries have it on the third or more page. Consequently, world countries’ level of awareness about “glo bal responsibility” and “international citizensh ip” is still embryonic. Also, the statistical test revealed that economic scale is a significant predictor in explaining a country’s level of con cern about global issues, whereas political status and level of freedom do not have st atistically significant correlations with global issue management. Similar to the corporate sector, states with bigger economic scale tend to more appreciate th e importance of globa l issues, in other words, “global responsibilit y,” than states with smalle r economic scale. On top of that, states with bigger economic scale ha ve more capacities in terms of spending and donating their efforts and money to deal with immediate global issues. It is

PAGE 70

58 desirable in that some developed and lead ing countries strive to make the world a better place to live and provide humanitarian aid as a part of “global responsibility” and “international citizenship.” Limitations This study has importance in that it is the first comprehensive research on world countries’ Web public diplomacy activities with public relations perspectives. It is also to be hoped that this study will serve as a platform for more extended body of knowledge of public relati ons and its continuous contribution to the field of world politics and public diplomacy in terms of relationship management. Nonetheless, there are a numb er of limitations that remain to be resolved. First of all, in terms of the dialogic relationship building features counted in the Web site content analysis, it is some what needed to refine and adjust those features to capture the unique nature of relationships taking place in the realm of public diplomacy. Even though the intercoder re liability turned out to be desirable, the very first intention of Taylor, Kent, and White, who created the measurement items, was focused on activist organizations’ Web site utilization. Therefore, it is possible that the measurement instrument used in this study could not fully embrace the characteristics of government s-publics relations. To name a few, it would be instrumental to include a dipl omacy glossary item and a recent policy announcement item on the measurement f eatures related to usefulness of information to publics.

PAGE 71

59 In addition, political status of worl d countries should have been segmented more elaborately, rather than just “dem ocracy/not democracy.” Even though it was hard to find more comprehensive and sophi sticated secondary data in terms of world countries’ political stat us, the result might have been changed, if given more detailed classification. Perhaps, it would much more meaningful to compare world countries based on their respective form of government, such as parliamentary system or presidential system. Suggestions for Future Research Based on this study, future research needs to be made to shed more light on public relations’ value and contributi on with regard to public diplomacy. First, considering that public relations basically deals with relationship in itself, it will be valuable to explore sp ecific relationship measurement scales, which can be applicable to public diplomacy c ontext, other than trust, commitment, satisfaction, control mutuality, exchange relationship, and communal relationship, drawn by Hon and J. Grunig (1999). In partic ular, studies so far have only focused on organization-public relati onships in a domestic set ting. Relationship studies regarding public diplomacy will extend the sc ope of public relations research to the international level as well. Second, further consideration about nati onal variables in relation to public diplomacy activities is needed. Even t hough a country’s politi cal status, economic scale, and level of freedom are recognized as the most representative variables to compare world countries, there should be more diverse and unique national variables, for example, Hofstede’s (1980) five dimensions of societal culture,

PAGE 72

60 including power distance, collectivism, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation, th at influence countries’ public diplomacy practices. Moreover, it can more sophisticat edly visualize the antecedents of the excellence in public diplomacy. Third, a comparative analysis of Web public diplomacy by region will be useful. This kind of study will conceptuali ze the actual public diplomacy situations of each region of the world and can pres ent desirable ways for advancement to each regional country. Fourth, considering the increasing impor tance of non-state actor relations in public diplomacy, elaborate segmentation of non-state actors and exploration of different relationship building processes for each non-state actor are necessary. In line with the situational theo ry of public relations, this kind of study will shed light on understanding characteristics of various publics involved in public diplomacy practices. Last but not least, a content analys is specifically desi gned for global issue management of world countries is wo rth being taken into account. It will conceptualize world countries’ awareness and endeavor to solve mutual problems and international cooperation and relationshi p building processes in terms of global crisis management.

PAGE 73

61 APPENDIX A CODING SHEET FOR THE CONTENT ANALYSIS Coder: Name of the country: 1. A country’s level of governmental Web sites utilization 1-1. Presence of governmental Web sites (Check all that apply) 1-1-1. Check the presence or abse nce of governmental Web sites. 1-1-1-1. Presence of governmental We b sites: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 1-1-1-2. Existing governmental Web site s (Check all items applicable to the country) (1) Foreign ministry __ (2) Foreign embassy __ (3) President __ 1-1-1-3. Governmental Web site that is analyzed (1) Foreign ministry __ (2) Foreign embassy __ (3) President __ 1-1-2. Check the presence or absence of En glish-language based governmental Web sites. 1-1-2-1. English-based governmental Web sites: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2. Dialogic relationship building 2-1. Ease of interface (check all that apply) 2-1-1. Check the presence or absenc e of ease of interface features. 2-1-1-1. Site map: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __

PAGE 74

62 2-1-1-2. Major links to rest of the site: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-1-1-3. Search engine box: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-1-1-4. Low reliance on graphics : (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-2. Usefulness of information to publics (check all that apply) 2-2-1. Check the presence or absence of usefulness of information features. 2-2-1-1. Press releases: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-2-1-2. Speeches: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-2-1-3. Downloadable graphics : (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-2-1-4. Audio/Visual capacity : (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-2-1-5. Links to political lead ers: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-3. Conservation of visitors (check all that apply) 2-3-1. Check the presence or absence of conservation of visitors features. 2-3-1-1. Important info available on 1st page: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-3-1-2. Short loading time (less than 4 seconds): (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-3-1-3. Posting of last updated time and date: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-4. Return visits (ch eck all that apply) 2-4-1. Check the presence or abse nce of return visits features. 2-4-1-1. Explicit statement invites user to return: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-4-1-2. News forum (regularly sche duled): (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-4-1-3. FAQ’s or Q & A’s: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-4-1-4. Bookmark now: (1 ) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-4-1-5. Links to other Web site s: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-4-1-6. Calendar of events: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __

PAGE 75

63 2-4-1-7. Downloadable information: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-4-1-8. Things that can be requested by mail or e-mail: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-4-1-9. Posting news stories within 15 days: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-5. Dialogic loop (che ck all that apply) 2-5-1. Check the presence or ab sence of dialogic loop features. 2-5-1-1. Opportunity for user-respons e: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-5-1-2. Opportunity to vote on i ssues: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-5-1-3. Survey to voice opinion on issues: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 2-5-1-4. Offers regular information th rough e-mail: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 3. Non-state actor relations 3-1. Check the level of prominence re garding non-state actor relations. (1) 1st layer __ (2) 2nd layer __ (3) 3rd layer or more __ (4) None __ 3-2. Interactive communication features in the non-state actor-related pages (Check all that apply) 3-2-1. Check the presence or absence of interactive communication features. 3-2-1-1. Search engine box: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 3-2-1-2. Viewer choice: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 3-2-1-3. E-mail address: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 3-2-1-4. Bulletin board: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 3-2-1-5. Chat room: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 3-2-1-6. Blog: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __ 3-2-1-7. Other: (1) Pr esence __ (2) Absence __

PAGE 76

64 4. Awareness level of global issues 4-1. Check the level of prominence regarding global issue information. (1) 1st layer __ (2) 2nd layer __ (3) 3rd layer or more __ (4) None __ 4-2. Awareness level of global issues 4-2-1. Check the presence or absence of global issue featur es (Check all that apply) 4-2-1-1. Global issue informati on: (1) Presence __ (2) Absence __

PAGE 77

65 APPENDIX B CODE BOOK FOR THE CONTENT ANALYSIS Instruction: Based on the content of each governmental Web site, check the items that are listed on the coding sheet. Also, if you have any questions in relation to the coding, feel free to ask the researcher. Coder: Your full name Name of the country: The official name of a country, which is the member of the UN 1. A country’s level of governmental Web sites utilization 1-1. Presence of governmental Web sites In this study, the government al Web site for public di plomacy includes only three types of a Web site; a foreign ministry We b site, a foreign embassy Web site, and a presidential Web site. A foreign ministry Web site should be given the foremost priority of the content an alysis of a country, followed by a foreign embassy Web site and a Presidential Web site. For example, if a country has both a foreign ministry Web site and a foreign embassy Web site, only a foreign ministry Web site should be the unit of analysis. Like wise, if a country has a foreign embassy Web site and a presidential Web site without any official forei gn ministry Web site, a foreign embassy Web site should be solely analyzed. If a country has multiple foreign Embassy Web sites, please contact the researcher.

PAGE 78

66 1-1-1. Presence or absence of governmental Web sites Go to http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/ and fi nd links to the governmental Web sites of each country. If a country has no link relevant to the three categories of governmental Web sites (foreign ministry, fo reign embassy, and pr esidential) in the data base, go to Google (www.google.com) and search relevant governmental Web sites again. If you still cannot find any govern mental Web sites, then you can check the “absence” blank. Check a country’s all governmental Web sites available in the data base, and check only one Web site that you analyze. 1-1-2. Presence or absence of Englishlanguage based governmental Web sites Visit governmental Web sites of a country and find if an English-language version is available. You can change your unit of analysis based on the fact whether a Web site utilizes English-language or not. For instance, let’s say a country has all three governmental Web sites. Basically, you have to only analyze the foreign ministry Web site of a country, ignoring other two. However, if the foreign ministry Web site does not provide Eng lish-language version but a foreign Embassy Web site does, you have to change your analysis un it to a foreign Embassy Web site. If a country does not provide English-language based governmental Web sites at all level, you can terminate the analysis and leave other questions unfinished. 2. Dialogic relationship building 2-1. Ease of interface Check the presence or absence of items th at are listed on a coding sheet. Items should be investigated at a ll levels of a Web site. In terms of low reliance of

PAGE 79

67 graphics, you can conclude a Web site doe s not rely on graphics, if the Web pages of a site are generally comprise d of less than 50% of graphics. 2-2. Usefulness of information to publics Check the presence or absence of the items that are listed on a coding sheet. Refer to the following description of each item. Feature item Description Press releases News articles or information for the media Speeches Transcripts of important public speeches of the institution Downloadable graphics Downloadable in formation, either graphics or texts Audio/Visual capacity Availability of audio or video information Links to political leaders Ways to contact with officials (e-mail, mail, telephone, etc.) 2-3. Conservation of visitors Check the presence or absence of the items that are listed on a coding sheet. Refer to the following description of each item. Feature item Description Important info available of 1st page Information concerning public diplomacy policies Short loading time Less than 4 seconds to fully show the content of a Web site Posting of last updated time and date Speci fic sign of newly updated time and date 2-4. Return visits Check the presence or absence of the items that are listed on a coding sheet. Refer to the following description of each item.

PAGE 80

68 Feature item Description Explicit statement invites user to return Presence of re-invitation words on the Web page News forum Regularly schedul ed Web-based news forum FAQ’s or Q & A’s Means to answer publics’ requests or questions Bookmark now Means to register the Web site address to a person’s Internet bookmark list. Links to other Web sites Link systems to navigate other related Web sites Calendar of events Notice of a institution’s activities to publics Downloadable information Information regarding public diplomacy policies Things that can be requested by mail or e-mail Means for publics to request something to the institution Posting new stories within 15 days Updated news stories regarding the institution within 15 days 2-5. Dialogic loop Check the presence or absence of the items that are listed on a coding sheet. Refer to the following description of each item. Feature item Description Opportunity for user-response Means for publics to send messages to the institution Opportunity to vote on issues Systems for concerned publics to vote on certain controversial foreign policy issues Surveys to voice opinion on issues Web surveys for concerned publics to voice their opinions about certain foreign policies Offers regular information through e-mail Asking publics if they want regular e-mail notification service regarding foreign policies 3. Non-state actor relations In this study, non-state actors include all kinds of organization except state governments. Therefore, non-state actors in this study can be NGOs, private organizations, corporations, individuals, and so forth. An organization, which is

PAGE 81

69 governed or funded by a state even partia lly, cannot fall into the category of nonstate actors here. 3-1. Level of prominence regardi ng non-state actor relations Find non-state actors-related items less than two “clicks” from the main page. If you find non-state actors-related information on the main page, check 1st layer. If you find non-state actors-related information after one “click” from the main page, check 2nd layer. If you find non-state actorsrelated information after two “clicks” from the main page, check 3rd layer or more. If you cannot find any non-state actors-related information even after tw o “clicks” from the main page, check “none.” 3-2. Presence or absence of int eractive communication features Check the presence or absence of the items that are listed on a coding sheet. Refer to the following description of each item. Feature item Description Search engine box Search tools for the ease of information seeking Viewer choice Consideration of public s’ diversified needs (e.g., language choice) E-mail address One or more hot links to an e-mail address Bulletin board Communication tool with publics in an asynchronous manner Chat room Communication tool with publics in a synchronous manner Blog Communication tool with publics

PAGE 82

70 LIST OF REFERENCES Anzinger, G. (2002, June 26). Governments on the WWW Retrieved October 24, 2005, from http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/ Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review 23(2), 177-186. Berger, B. K. (2001). Private issues and public policy: Locating the corporate agenda in agenda-setting theory. Journal of Public Relations Research 13(2), 91-126. Brown, S. J., & Studemeister, M. S. (2003). Vi rtual diplomacy. In D. H. Johnston (Ed.), Encyclopedia of international media and communications (pp. 585-594). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Curtin, P. A., & Gaither, T. K. (2004). Inte rnational agenda-build ing in cyberspace: A study of Middle East government English-language websites. Public Relations Review 30, 25-36. Fisher, J. (2003). Local a nd global: International gove rnance and civil society. Journal of International Affairs 57(1), 19-39. Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2004). U.S. public diplomacy: Telling America’s story. Vital Speeches of the Day 70(13), 412-416. Freedom House (2005). Freedom in the world 2006 Retrieved February 4, 2006, from http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15&year=2005 Global Reach. (2004). Global Internet Statistics Retrieved October 24, 2005, from http://global-reac h.biz/globstats/index.php3 Gower, K. K. (2005). The fear of public relations in foreign affairs: an examination of the 1963 Fulbright Hearings into foreign agents. Public Relations Review 31, 37-46. Grieg, J. M. (2002). The end of geography? Globalization, communi cations, and culture in the international system. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 46(2), 225-243. Grunig, J. E. (1989). Sierra Club study shows who becomes activists. Public Relations Review 15(3), 3-24.

PAGE 83

71 Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Heath, R. L. (2001). A rhetorical enactment rationale for public relations: The good organization communicating well In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 31-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hertz, J. H. (1981). Pol itical realism revisited. International Studies Quarterly 25(2), 182-197. Hiebert, R. E. (2005). Commentary: Challenge s for Arab and Ameri can public relations and public diplomacy in a global age. Public Relations Review 31, 317-322. Hoffmann, S. (2002). Clash of globalizations. Foreign Affairs 81(4), 104-115. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations Retrieved January 20, 2006, from http://www.instituteforpr.org/pdf/ 1999_guide_measure_relationships.pdf Jacobson, T. L., & Jang, W. Y. (2003). Mediat ed war, peace, and global civil society. In B. Mody (Ed.), International and development communication (pp. 53-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jaworski, S. P., & Fosher, D. (2003). Nationa l brand identity & its effect on corporate brands: The nation brand effect (NBE). The Multinational Business Review 11(2), 99-113. Johnson, M. A. (2005). Five decades of Mexi can public relations in the United States: From propaganda to strategic counsel. Public Relations Review 31, 11-20. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review 24(3), 321-334. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2000). Globaliz ation: What’s new? What’s not? (And so what?). Foreign Policy 118, 104-119. Kunczik, M. (2003). Transnational public relations by foreign governments. In K. Sriramesh & D. Vercic (Ed.), The global public relations handbook (pp. 399-424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

PAGE 84

72 Lagon, M. P. (2003). Visions of globalization: Pretexts for prefabri cated prescriptions— and some antidotes. World Affairs 165(3), 142-148. Lasswell, H. D. (1927). Propaganda technique in the World War London: Kegan, Paul. Lee, M. (2005). When government used publ icity against itself: Toledo’s Commission of Publicity and Efficiency, 1916-1975. Public Relations Review 31, 55-61. Leonard, M. (2002). Diplomacy by other means. Foreign Policy 132, 48-56. L’Etang, J. (1996). Public relations as dipl omacy. In J. L’Etang & M. Pieczka (Ed.), Critical perspective in public relations (pp. 14-34). London: In ternational Thompson Business Press Malek, A. (2003). Foreign policy and the media. In D. H. Johnston (Ed.), Encyclopedia of international media and communications (pp. 23-29). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Manheim, J. B., & Albritton, R. B. (1984) Changing national images: International public relations and media agenda setting. The American Political Science Review 78(3), 641-657. Matthew, R. A. (2002). Environment, populatio n, and conflict: New modalities of threat and vulnerability in South Asia. Journal of International Affairs 56(1), 235-254. Maynard, M., & Tian, Y. (2004). Between globa l and glocal: Conten t analysis of the Chinese Web Sites of the 100 top global brands. Public Relations Review 30, 285291. McMillan, S. J. (2000). The microscope and the moving targe t: The challenge of applying content analysis to the World Wide Web. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 77(1), 80-98. Molleda, J. C., & Quinn, C. (2004). Cross-na tional conflict shif ting: A global public relations dynamic. Public Relations Review 30, 1-9. Molleda, J. C., Connolly-Ahern, C., & Quinn, C. (2005). Cross-nationa l conflict shifting: expanding a theory of global public re lations management through quantitative content analysis. Journalism Studies 6(1), 87-102. Nation Master. (2006). Government Status Retrieved February 5, 2006, from http://www.nationmaster.com/red/ graph-T/gov_sta&b_printable=1 Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy 80, 153-171. Nye, J. S. (2002). The dependent colossus. Foreign Policy 129, 74-76.

PAGE 85

73 Nye, J. S., & Owens, W. A. (1996). America’s information edge. Foreign Affairs 75(2), 20-36. O’Connell, M. E. (2005). Enhancing the stat us of non-state actors through a global war on terror?. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 43(2), 435-458. Peterson, P. G. (2002, September/October). Public diplomacy and the war on terrorism Retrieved October 12, 2005, from http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm? outfit=pmt&requesttimeout=500&folder=7&p aper=539 Ronfeldt, D., & Arquilla, J. (1999, February 25). What if there is a revolution in diplomatic affairs? Retrieved September 27, 2005, from http://www.usip.org/virtualdiplomacy/ publications/reports/ronarqISA99.html Ross, C. (2002). Public diplomacy comes of age. The Washington Quarterly 25(2), 7583. Saxer, U. (1993). Public rela tions and symbolic politics. Journal of Public Relations Research 5(2), 127-151. Scholte, J. (1997). Global capitalism and the state. International Affairs 73, 427-452. Signitzer, B. H., & Coombs, T. (1992). P ublic relations and public diplomacy: Conceptual convergence. Public Relations Review 18, 137-147. Solomon, R. H. (2000, March). The Internet and the diffusion of diplomacy Retrieved September 30, 2005, from http://usinfo.sta te.gov/journals/itps/0300/ijpe/pj51solo.htm Spitzer, C. (2003, October 5). New policy: Re place spin with more straight talk. Sunday Star p. 9A. Sriramesh, K., & Vercic, D. (2003). A theore tical framework for global public relations research and practice. In K. Sriramesh & D. Vercic (Ed.), The global public relations handbook (pp. 1-19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stevenson, R. L. (1994). Global communication in the 21st century New York, NY: Longman. Taylor, M. (2000). Toward a public relations approach to nation building. Journal of Public Relations Research 12(2), 179-210. Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. ( 2001). How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review 27, 263-284.

PAGE 86

74 Telhami, S. (2002). Public opinion could flare out of control in Arab nations San Jose, CA: Mercury. Thomson, K. W. (1977). Cultural exchange and global social change. Journal of International Affairs 31(2), 243-257. Viotti, P. R., & Kauppi, M. V. (2001). International relations and world politics: Security, economy, identity Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Von Eschen, P. M. (2005). Enduring public diplomacy. American Quarterly 57(2), 335343. Wakefield, R. I. (2001). Effective public relatio ns in the multinational organization. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 639-647). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2003). Mass media research: An introduction Belmont, CA: Wadworth/Thomson Learning. World Bank (2005, July 15). Total GDP 2004 Retrieved February 4, 2006, from http://siteresources.w orldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf Yeon, H. M. (2005). Interactive communication features on nonprofit organizations’ web pages for the practice of excellence in public relations Unpublished master thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Zaharna, R. S., & Villalobos, J. C. (2000). A public relations tour of Embassy Row: The Latin diplomatic experience. Public Relations Quarterly 45(4), 33-37. Zhang, J., & Benoit, W. L. (2004). Message strategies of Saudi Arabia’s image restoration campaign after 9/11. Public Relations Review 30, 161-167. Zhang, J., & Cameron, G. T. (2003). China’s ag enda building and imag e polishing in the US: Assessing an international public relations campaign. Public Relations Review 29, 13-28. Zhang, J., Qiu, Q., & Cameron, G. T. (2004). A contingency approach to the Sino-U.S. conflict resolution. Public Relations Review 30, 391-399.

PAGE 87

75 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH In 2004, Hyung Min Lee earned double BA degrees in mass communication and public administration from Han-Yang University, Seoul. He will continue his PhD study at the University of Minnesot a-Twin Cities after graduation.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014389/00001

Material Information

Title: New Paradigm of Public Diplomacy and Broadened Relationship Building: A Comparative Analysis of Foreign Governments' Web Sites
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014389:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014389/00001

Material Information

Title: New Paradigm of Public Diplomacy and Broadened Relationship Building: A Comparative Analysis of Foreign Governments' Web Sites
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014389:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











NEW PARADIGM OF PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND BROADENED
RELATIONSHIP BUILDING: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS' WEB SITES















By

HYUNG MIN LEE


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Hyung Min Lee


































This thesis is dedicated to my family, including two puppies. Also, many thanks go
to my advisers, friends, and colleagues, who have been very supportive and
encouraging.










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I want to thank my parents, sister, and two puppies back

in Seoul, South Korea, who have always been there for me in good times or bad

times. I have never been good to my family, despite their unconditional support

and concern. Also, I have not expressed my gratitude firsthand. However, I would

like to show them my indescribable thankfulness through this acknowledgement at

least.

I cannot thank enough my academic advisor and committee chair, Dr. Juan-

Carlos Molleda, for having given me thoughtful care and warmhearted

encouragement. He always led me to have a higher vision and supported me to

make the impossible the possible. Without his advice, I would never have finished

this work.

I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Linda Hon and Dr.

Michael Mitrook. Throughout the whole period of my master's degree program, I

was lucky enough to have an opportunity to share their renowned knowledge. Also,

they have given me extraordinary advice to make this research possible. I am truly

grateful to them.

In addition, I would like to thank the Korean faculty of the college, Dr.

Chang-Hoan Cho, Dr. Youjin Choi, and Dr. Hyojin Kim. They were definitely in

my support system not only publicly but also privately. They always set good

examples that I want to follow.

Hyojin Shin, Young Shin Hong, Na Young Park, Hye-Min Yeon, Hyeri Choi,

Seo Yoon Choi, Dong Jin Lim, and Jimi Park have been my good fellows as well









as phenomenal classmates. I think we met together and have become friends by a

million to one chance. They have always been there for me, and I will be there for

them forever.

Special thanks go to the Korean Communigator Tennis Club members, Jong

Woo Jun, Sang Won Lee, Hyung Seok Lee, Young Han Bae, Jin Seong Park, Yang

Hwan Lee, Jae Hee Park, Eyun-Jung Ki, Hyung-Jung Yun, and Hyung Doung Lee.

I will never forget the great moments and talks we had. In addition, I cannot thank

them enough for their advice and concern throughout my PhD application process.

Other Korean communigators, including Hyoung Koo Khang, You Na Kim,

Kenneth Eun Han Kim, Robert Jang Yul Kim, Yoon Jae Nam, Jang Won Moon,

Chong Moo Woo, Sang Mi Lee, Seon Mi Lee, Joon Soo Lim, Ah Young Ji,

Bumsub Jin, Chang Hyun Jin, Ji Young Cha, should be regarded. I have nothing

but good memories about them.

I would like to thank all my public relations classmates as well, including

Alexis, Ben, Chantal, Chun-Hsin, Danny, Elise, Emel, Lori, Meghan, Meredith,

Paul, Wes, Yi-Jong, and Yi-Shan for their kindness and friendship.

Also, I would like to thank the Scott family, Anne, Terry, and Tim, for

making me feel great hospitality and taste American lifestyles. I will never forget

the warmhearted kindness that they have shown me. I always pray for their well-

being and happiness.

All my friends back in South Korea should be mentioned for just being there

and wising me good luck. My Myung-I1 dong family has been the biggest

motivation for me to keep trying to be the best, since I was a little kid. Also, I









would like to thank many friends, seniors, and juniors at Han Yang University,

especially my fraternal friends of the culture club, also known as Moon-Hwa Bu.

Without their support and care, I would have felt very lonely.

Last but not least, I would like to salute all the student athletes of the

University of Florida. They have shown me what the indomitable effort is and

made me proud to be a Gator. It has been real honor for me just to share those

unbelievable moments with them on campus.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ......... ..... .................. .......... ........ .... .... .......... .. ix

LIST OF FIGURES ............................... ... ...... ... ................. .x

ABSTRACT ........ .............. ............. ...... ...................... xi

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

Extension of the Public Relations' Dom ain ...................... ..................... .................
The Convergence of Public Diplomacy and Public Relations............... ..................
T he P purpose of the Study .............................................................................. ...... .4

2 LITER A TU R E REV IEW ............................................................. ....................... 5

G lobalization and W orld Politics........................................... ........................... 5
N ew Technologies and W orld Politics ........................................ ...... ............... 8
Public D iplom acy ............................................................... .. .......... ......... 11
P ub lic O pinion ......................................... ... ........... ........... ........ ............ ..13
National Brand and Image-making toward Broadended Publics ............................16
Propaganda and Public D iplom acy..................................... ......................... ......... 17
Internet Technology and Public Diplomacy ................. ...... ....................20
R ealpolitik vs. N oopolitik................................................. .............................. 22

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................................................................ ................... 27

Research D esign and D ata Collection ............................................. ............... 27
Theoretical Foundation of the Coding Instrument..............................................29
Pretest and C oder Training ........................................................... ............... 31
D ata A n aly sis ............................. ....................................................... ............... 3 2

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................3 3

R research Q question 1 ..................... .... ........ .................................. .. ............ 33
Research Question 2 ..................................................... ............ 35









R research Q question 3 ................... .... ........ .................................. .. ............ 36
Research Question 4 ..................................................... ............ 39
R research Q question 5 ................... .... ........ .................................. .. ............ 42
Hypothesis 1, 2, and 3..................... ....................... .......... 43
Hypothesis 4, 5, and 6..................... .............................. .... 45
H hypothesis 7, 8, and 9....................... ................ ................. ..... ...... 47

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................. ............... 49

Current Status of World Countries' Public Diplomacy Web Sites ...........................49
Dialogic Relationship Building in Public Diplomacy .........................................51
Non-state Actor Relations in Public Diplomacy ................................ ............... 55
Global Issue Management in Public Diplomacy ................................................57
L im stations ............... ............................................................................ .... 58
Suggestions for Future R research ........................................ .......................... 59

APPENDIX

A CODING SHEET FOR THE CONTENT ANALYSIS ..........................................61

B CODE BOOK FOR THE CONTENT ANALYSIS ....................................... 65

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ......... ...................... ..............................................................70

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ..................................................................... ..................75
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1 Number of Public Diplomacy Web Sites Utilized by Each Countries ............... 35

4-2 Number of Analyzed Web Sites by a Type of Organization............... ...............35

4-3 Occurrence of Dialogic Relationship Building Items ......................... ...........38

4-4 Frequencies of Non-state Actor Dialogic Relationship Building Features ..............40

4-5 Occurrence of Non-state Actor Dialogic Relationship Building Items....................41

4-6 The Regression Model Summary ................................ ......... ............... 44

4-7 Coefficients (H I through H 3) ............................................................................ 44

4-8 The Regression Model Summary ........................... ............................ 46

4-9 Coefficients (H 4 through H 6) ............................................................................ 46

4-10 The Regression M odel Sum m ary .................................... ........................... ........ 47

4-11 Coefficients (H 7 through H 9) ............................................................................ 48
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p

4-1 Public Diplomacy Web Sites' Absence/Presence .......................................... 34

4-2 Absence/Presence of English Version Web Site......................................................36

4-3 The Histogram of Web Site Dialogic Relationship Building Strategies..................37

4-4 The Bar Chart of Non-state Actor Relations Information Prominence ..................39

4-5 The Histogram of Non-state Actor Relationship Building Strategies......................41

4-6 Absence/Presence of Global Issue Concern .......................................................42

4-7 The Bar Chart of Global Issue Information Prominence ......................................43

















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication

NEW PARADIGM OF PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND BROADENED
RELATIONSHIP BUILDING: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS' WEB SITES

By

Hyung Min Lee

May 2005

Chair: Juan-Carlos Molleda
Major Department: Journalism and Communications

This study aims to explain the new paradigm of public diplomacy and explicate it

with the public relations perspective in terms of international relationship management.

Due to globalization and the information revolution resulting from technological

developments, there has been significant transition in international public diplomacy.

Public diplomacy in recent years requires more open and symmetric communication and

relationship management skills with a broadened spectrum of publics. Therefore, more

public relations approaches to public diplomacy are needed increasingly. This study

attempts to investigate the current status of world countries' public diplomacy through

the Internet medium. Also, it is to discern national variables, such as political system,

economic scale, and level of freedom, influencing countries' public diplomacy quality in

terms of dialogic relationship building strategies, non-state actor relations, and global









issue management. To accomplish the purposes of this study, a content analysis of the

191 UN member countries' public diplomacy Web sites was conducted.

Statistical results proved that today's world countries adjust themselves to the new

paradigm of public diplomacy relatively well in terms of adaptation of Web public

diplomacy communication channels and overall dialogic relationship management.

However, world countries still need to improve themselves regarding non-state actor

relations and global issue management.

In addition, statistical tests revealed that a country's economic scale and level of

freedom are significant predictors in explaining its quality of overall dialogic relationship

management and non-state actor relations. Also, a country's economic scale influences its

level of concern about global issues, which can be described as global responsibility.

This study calls for more public relations attention to contribute to effective and

mutually beneficial public diplomacy in terms of international relationship management.

It is hoped that this study will serve as a platform for a more extended body of knowledge

of public relations as well.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Extension of the Public Relations' Domain

Increasingly, the field of public relations has been expanding its influence by

applying its unique ideas and theories to different areas. Given that public relations

basically deals with all kinds of relationships among organizations and societies, it

seems pretty natural.

Now we can easily see public relations regarding management, politics, public

diplomacy, and so forth. Many scholars and practitioners are trying to explore

social phenomena with public relations viewpoints and they have proved the efforts

are valuable (e.g., Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001; Molleda, Connoly-Ahern, &

Quinn, 2005).

Especially, when it comes to cross-national or cross-cultural context, the value

of public relations and its implications are likely to be more important in terms of

building and maintaining relationships with quite different entities. Regardless of

an organization's characteristic, if it is a private company, a public enterprise, or

even a country, composing and operating it with international perspectives have

become much more essential. In this ever-globalizing world, all of these

organizations are trying to keep in touch and build relationships with external

environments, the world, in order to establish mutually beneficial relations.

Taylor (2000) argued, "public relations may be viewed better as a tool to

negotiate relationships between previously unrelated social systems or as a tool to









modify existing relationships between organizations and publics" (pp. 179-180).

Definitely, the extension of public relations to international context is favorable

and promising.

The Convergence of Public Diplomacy and Public Relations

The emergence of public relations approaches in international public

diplomacy is remarkable. As the "Cold War" ended and the new world order has

set, the world is literally becoming a battlefield. Ironically, the appeased tension

between the world's two powerhouses, the Soviet Union and the United States, has

caused more international conflicts among nations (Jacobson & Jang, 2003).

Countries emancipated from colonization have suffered from absence of concrete

institutions and national identities, and consequent internal disorders. Some newly-

independent countries even have manifested long-hidden social tensions such as

ethnic and religious conflicts (Hoffmann, 2002). International conflicts concerning

resources, borders, and religions are exploding.

As a result, world governments are required to be active participants in

international public relations more than ever (Signitzer & Coombs, 1992).

Jacobson and Jang (2003) asserted that "the growing interest among governments

in 'public diplomacy' indicates that public opinion cannot be ignored entirely,

either inside or outside national borders" (p. 64). In addition, a considerable

number of national governments are recruiting or outsourcing professional public

relations practitioners for their global image-making activities (Manheim &

Albritton, 1984).









There has been significant transition in international public diplomacy

tendencies. For example, many scholars have pointed out the emergence of "soft

power," rather than "hard power," which was prevalent in the past, within the

public diplomacy territory.

"Soft power" is the ability to achieve desired outcomes in international
affairs through attraction rather than coercion. It works by convincing others
to follow, or getting them to agree to, norms and institutions that produce
the desired behavior. Soft power can rest on the appeal of one's ideas or the
ability to set the agenda in ways that shape the preference of others. If a
state can make its power legitimate in the perception of others and establish
international institutions that encourage them to channel or limit their
activities, it may not need to expand as many of its costly traditional
economic or military resources. (Nye & Owens, 1996, p. 21)

Due to those transformations in public diplomacy, public relations theories are

vigorously applied to foreign affairs and international politics. Saxer (1993) argued

that "an analysis and assessment of the political-scientific concept of symbolic

politics and its implementation in political practice from a PR-scientific perspective

can furnish relevant impulses and ideas" (p. 146). In addition, L'Etang (1996)

insisted, "both public relations and diplomacy deal in trust and use strategies of

negotiation and impression management while guarding the reputation of their

clients" (p. 27). Many studies also show that public outreach campaigns would be

instrumental, even if a situation is concerned with a relationship building or

maintenance between one nation and the other nation (e.g., Zhang & Cameron,

2003; Zhang & Benoit, 2004; Zhang, Qiu, & Cameron, 2004).









The Purpose of the Study

This study aimed to identify the new paradigm of public diplomacy with

regard to the public relations perspective, specifically focusing on broadened

relationship building strategies employed by world governments' Web sites. There

are many trends and evidence in favor of increasing changes in public diplomacy

worldwide. The study also attempted to identify the current transition regarding

effective public diplomacy strategies and how world governments actually adjust

themselves to this transition through governmental Web sites. In addition, the

researcher tried to discern national variables, including political system, economic

scale, and freedom, which might influence the extent to which a country applies the

new concept of international public diplomacy and tries to build and maintain good

relationships with concerned publics.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Globalization and World Politics

We often use the term "globalization" to describe contemporary social,

economic, cultural, and political situations within the global system. The

globalization process today is not only a dominant trend but also an inevitable

force, in that linkages among world people and states are expanding (Greig, 2002).

Scholte (1997) described globalization by three concepts. The first concept

implies the increase in cross-national relations. Apparently, exchanges of materials,

such as products, ideas, finance, and even people, among countries have been

augmenting. The second concept illustrates disappearance of barriers between

world people and states in terms of global-scale movements of goods. Finally, the

third concept views globalization as transcendence of national borders. This means

comprehensive relations among global publics reducing the traditional meaning of

geographical territories.

Keohane and Nye (2000) asserted:

"Globalization" emerged as a buzzword in the 1990s, just as
"interdependence" did in the 1970s, but the phenomena it refers to are not
entirely new. Our characterization of interdependence more than 20 years
ago now applies to globalization at the turn of the millennium: "This vague
phrase expresses a poorly understood but widespread feeling that the very
nature of world politics is changing." (p. 104)

They also claimed a manifestation of globalization phenomena depends on whether

a "globalism" condition increases or decreases. In other words, the current









globalization trend throughout the world refers to thickening of "globalism."

According to Keohane and Nye (2002), "Globalism is a state of the world

involving networks of interdependence at multicontinental distances. The linkages

occur through flows and influences of capital and goods, information and ideas,

and people and forces, as well as environmentally and biologically relevant

substances (such as acid rain or pathogens)" (p. 105).

In addition, they posited three subsequent changes as globalization phenomena

deepen.

1. Density of networks: As interdependence and globalism have become
thicker, systemic relationships among different networks have become more
important. Thickness of globalism means that different relationships of
interdependence intersect more deeply at more points. Hence, the effects of
events in one geographical area, on one dimension, can have profound
effects in other geographical areas, on other dimensions.
2. Institutional velocity: The information revolution is at the heart of
economic and social globalization. Markets react more quickly than before,
because information diffuses so much more rapidly and huge sums of
capital can be moved at a moment's notice and NGOs have vastly expanded
their levels of activity.
3. Transnational participation and complex interdependence: Reduced costs
of communications have increased the number of participating actors and
increased the relevance of "complex interdependence." This concept
describes a hypothetical world with three characteristics: multiple channels
between societies, with multiple actors, not just states; multiple issues, not
arranged in any clear hierarchy; and the irrelevance of the threat or use of
force among states linked by complex interdependence. (pp. 108-115)

Lagon (2003) classified positive visions and negative visions regarding

globalization. Positive visions include the following:

1. The expandedpie vision: Because capital flows and the workings of
comparative advantage are all the more rapid and automatic, because
barriers to trade are futile and are being removed, because technology flows
unfettered to new users, the world economic pie is growing. While there are
relative haves and have-nots, the increased pie means both are getting a
better lot.









2. The information penetration vision: Because of communications
technology allegedly available to and applicable by even less developed
nations, governments cannot control information. Undemocratic regimes
can no longer successfully control news media to retain a monopoly of
political power.
3. The universal solvent vision: Capitalism of the globalization era will
wash away autocracies. Burgeoning trade and foreign investment will
inevitably lead to economic development and economic liberalization, and
hence ultimately to political liberalization.
4. The web ofpeace vision: It is increasingly impossible for nation-states to
ignore the loss of economic prosperity involved in military conflict. A web
of interconnectedness is developing between nations-even between
democratically and undemocratically ruled nations-which is making war
obsolete. (pp. 142-143)

On the contrary, negative visions include:

1. The economic inequity vision: Champions of this vision are concerned
with the rush of businesses to put their money into economies with limited
labor rights and costs and the resulting loss of jobs in advanced countries,
and the power of multinational corporations' outstripping that of some
developing states.
2. The insecurity vision: Growing transnational security threats include
proliferation of both weapons of mass destruction and conventional and
small arms; terrorist networks; ethnic groups with murderous agendas
regarding their groups; and chaos, violence, and refugee migration resulting
from weak or failed states.
3. The criminality vision: Those activities include intellectual property
piracy, corruption, money laundering, and networks for trafficking in drugs,
guns, and persons. (p. 143)

Regardless of those contradictory views, one thing that is for sure is the new

paradigm shift in world politics is inevitable in this age of globalization. For

example, after September 11, world governments' diplomatic conception and

attitude have been significantly changed, because the case showed newly emerging

global actors including individuals and interest groups, along with states, and

requests of new relationship building endeavor with those global entities

(Hoffmann, 2002). As Nye (2002) explained, "For better and worse, technology is

putting capabilities within the reach of individuals that were solely the preserve of









government in the past" (p. 76). In addition, traditional diplomatic means, such as

military forces and raw materials, appear to be ineffective or too much costly,

whereas "the factors of technology, education, and economic growth are becoming

more significant in international power" (Nye, 1990, p. 154). All in all, world

governments will experience much more unforeseen difficulties in dealing with

international politics and public diplomacy. Therefore, they have to transform their

previous routines into the new paradigm in accord with this globalization era.

New Technologies and World Politics

As aforementioned, new technologies are one of the main causal factors of

both globalization and the paradigm shift in world politics. We are living in

entirely different world because of recent technology developments. More

important, the power resources related to world politics have been disseminated

from some mighty states to weaker states or even private actors.

Nye (1990) referred to five contributing trends to this powerful diffusion

phenomenon: "economic interdependence, transnational actors, nationalism in

weak states, the spread of technology, and changing political issues" (p. 160). First

of all, economic interdependence among world countries is mainly attributed to

technology developments. Due to new technologies, people can travel around the

world even faster and cheaper, also can communicate with other foreign people in a

more convenient and reasonable way. Nye (1990) asserted that "the declining costs

of transportation and communication have revolutionized global markets and

accelerated the development of transnational corporations that transfer economic

activity across borders" (p. 161).









The increased economic interdependence has led to increased transnational

interests. In particular, as enormous transnational investments are common, world

politics have become very complicated. Transnational actors including

multinational corporations, international NGOs, and prominent public figures have

actively participated in the process of world politics along with state governments.

Accordingly, today's world governments have to incorporate other transnational

actors' voices in their policy decision-making (Nye, 1990).

New technology developments also have given unprecedented power to poor

or weak states in terms of rising nationalism and ethnocentrism. Members of weak

states or minority groups have become to be able to unite and mobilize their once

scattered resources, and have become vocal in world politics (Nye, 1990). For

example, world governments cannot simply ignore voices from Muslim terrorist

groups, such as Al-Qaeda or HAMAS, because they are more systematic and well-

organized than they were in the past, due to new communication and transportation

technologies.

Meanwhile, technology developments per se have accelerated the power

diffusion of the world. Not to mention communication or transportation

technologies, overall technology developments have contributed to the power

diffusion at a global level. For instance, arms technology developments enabled

non-state actors including guerrillas and terrorist groups to obtain weapons more

easily and inexpensively to resist their antagonists, and therefore they are becoming

powerful (Nye, 1990).









Consequently, international political issues are in transition. World

governments are trying to cooperate with those non-state actors in addition to other

governments. As Nye (1990) explained:

The solutions to many current issues of transnational interdependence will
require collective action and international cooperation. These include
ecological changes (acid rain and global warming), health epidemics such as
AIDS, illicit trade in drugs, and terrorism. Such issues are transnational
because they have domestic roots and cross international borders. (pp. 163-
164)

According to Matthew (2002), "the future of humankind may depend on

finding creative ways to rebalance social and ecological relationships as well as

local and global ones" (p. 251). More important, communication technology

advances, including the Internet, require broadened relationship building strategies

to world governments. Solomon (2000) illustrated the current transformation of

U.S. foreign policy as "diffusion of diplomacy." Also, he argued that "The Internet

has thrown open governments' gates to new constituencies who are not limited by

traditional geographic or other physical barriers from actively participating in the

policy-making process" (Solomon, 2000, n.p.). Moreover, "they (non-state

individuals and groups) not only use the Internet to gather information but also to

broadcast information globally and advocate specific policy actions on everything

from trade to human rights policies" (Solomon, 2000, n.p.).

Maynard and Tian (2004) pointed out that globalization and technology

developments both contributed to not only creating cultural homogenization at a

global level but also strengthening nationalism or ethnocentrism at a local level.

Previously estranged people from the world politics are coming back to the main

stage while unifying under their similar backgrounds, including ethnicity,









nationality, religion, and so forth. These phenomena have given much pressure on

world governments to accommodate the new paradigm of public diplomacy.

Public Diplomacy

Public diplomacy is the neologism to describe changed diplomatic ways of

world governments. According to Ross (2002), "it is not traditional diplomacy,

which consists essentially of the interactions that take place between governments"

(p. 75). In the past, conventional diplomacy practitioners only dealt with and

communicated with the representatives of foreign governments to understand and

share each other's ideals and policies. However, public diplomacy needs to engage

much segmented and broadened foreign publics in inter-state policy-making and

nation's image making processes (Ross, 2002).

Fitzpatrick (2004) also viewed public diplomacy similarly. She explained that

"public diplomacy efforts are directed at the citizens of other countries" (p. 413).

Fitzpatrick (2004) continued, "More traditional diplomatic efforts, on the other

hand, are typically aimed at influencing other governments through their national

leaders."

Then, why does public diplomacy get into the spotlight over traditional

diplomacy in recent years? Thompson (1977) argued that "for many of the

developed countries, there is an unmistakable trend away from unilateral cultural

relations toward reciprocal culture relations based on respect for the integrity of

human cultures and the desirability of keeping cultural relations free from political

domination and power differentials" (p. 243). Moreover, the current of the time

have contributed to the emergence of public diplomacy perspective globally. For









example, as Fitzpatrick (2004) asserted, many U.S. diplomacy practitioners now

acknowledge the importance of long-term relationship building and mutual

understanding with other countries or even private actors to defend their national

security after 9/11. Today, it is almost impossible to secure national interests

overseas based on solely geographic advantages, military power, or natural

resources. That is why "members of Congress called for increased funding for

Middle East public diplomacy initiatives" soon after 9/11 (Fitzpatrick, 2004, p.

414).

In line with Nye's "soft power" conception, Signitzer and Coombs (1992)

compared the "tough-minded" and the "tender-minded" distinction of public

diplomacy. The "tough-minded" diplomatic idea can be summarized as the

following:

The tough-minded hold that the purpose of public diplomacy is to exert an
influence on attitudes of foreign audiences using persuasion and
propaganda. Hard political information is considered more important than
cultural programs. Fast media such as radio, television, newspapers and
news magazines are given preference over other forms of communication.
Objectivity and the truth are considered important tools of persuasion but
not extolled as virtues in themselves. Supreme criterion for public
diplomacy is the raison d'etat defined in terms of fairly short-term policy
ends. (p. 140)

On the other hand, the "tender-minded" diplomatic idea can be described as the

following:

The tender-minded school argues that information and cultural programs
must bypass current foreign policy goals to concentrate on the highest long-
range national objectives. The goal is to create a climate of mutual
understanding. Public diplomacy is seen as a predominantly cultural
function as opposed to the conveying of hard political information. Slow
media such as films, exhibitions, language instruction, academic and artistic
exchanges with a view toward transmitting messages about lifestyles,
political and economic systems, and artistic achievements are used. Truth









and veracity are considered essential, much more than a mere persuasive
act. (p. 140)

Obviously, current public diplomacy tendencies lean toward "tender-minded"

concept and apply "soft power" to build mutually beneficial relationships with

foreign publics. Government officials and diplomacy practitioners learned from

previous trials and errors of foreign affairs.

Given that public diplomacy also deals with mutually beneficial relationship

building and maintenance, public diplomacy and foreign policy processes are

closely correlated to public relations endeavor of states (Kunczik, 2003). In fact,

many embassies or foreign affairs ministries even recruit public relations or

advertising firms to implement public diplomacy abroad effectively. The

government of Mexico contracted with Burson-Marsteller to ameliorate relations

with media, decision-makers, and general publics of the United States, and spent

$1 million dollars a year. Colombia, which suffered from the notorious image as a

hotbed of drugs, did advertising campaigns in order to better the national images in

the United States (Zaharna & Villalobos, 2000).

Public Opinion

Public opinion is essential to success of public diplomacy not only because it

can create favorable or hostile diplomatic atmosphere in a target country but

because it can affect a government's foreign policy decision-making. For the most

part, a country's image abroad can influence foreign publics' stereotypes or

preferences regardless of whether it is true or not. How foreign publics understand

or interpret other countries' worldviews and ideologies can form a possible or an

impossible environment for effective public diplomacy. Hertz (1981) claimed that









"it is perhaps no exaggeration to say that today half of power politics consists of

image making" (p. 187). He continued, "With the rising importance of publics in

foreign affairs, image making has steadily increased" (p. 187). Political leaders and

government officials also acknowledge the power of attractive images and

favorable foreign publics' opinion in doing effective public diplomacy (Nye,

1990).

In relation to public diplomacy's success or failure, Leonard (2002) asserted

the following:

Public diplomacy should be about building relationships, starting from
understanding other countries' needs, cultures, and people and then looking
for areas to make common cause. As the relationships deepen, public
diplomacy can achieve a hierarchy of objectives: increasing familiarity
(making people think about your country and updating their images of it);
increasing appreciation (creating positive perceptions of your country and
getting others to see issues from your perspective); engaging people
(encouraging people to see your country as an attractive destination for
tourism and study and encouraging them to buy its products and subscribe
to its values); and influencing people's behavior (getting companies to
invest, encouraging public support for your country's positions, and
convincing politicians to turn to it as an ally). (p. 50)

Leonard (2002) also presented three dimensions of public diplomacy for

successful and desirable outcomes:

1. Communication on day-to-day issues: Some of the stories that have the
biggest impact abroad are not traditional foreign policy stories that
embassies are equipped to deal with but are domestic stories, such as the
outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain. Therefore, public diplomacy
practitioners must monitor international press coverage carefully and
prepare to react promptly on a day-to-day basis.
2. Strategic communication: Strategic communication is like a political
campaign, which develops a set of comprehensive messages and plans a
series of symbolic events and photo opportunities to reinforce them.
3. Developing lasting relationships with key individuals: These relationships
are not built between diplomats and people abroad, but built between every
level of cross-national exchanges including scholarships, businesses,
conferences, and access to media channels. Conveying information across









borders and understanding each other are key factors of this kind of long-
term relationship building. (pp. 50-51)

In sum, public diplomacy should be a central and important activity "that is

played out across many dimensions and with many partners" (Leonard, 2002, p.

56). As a matter of fact, there have emerged unparalleled diplomatic activities

based on this new paradigm of public diplomacy worldwide. For example, "both

Arabs and Americans have developed negative opinions about each other,

increasing the need for good public relations and public diplomacy between the

two publics" (Hiebert, 2005, p. 319). According to the survey research done by

Telhami (2002), only four percent of Saudis, six percent of Jordanians and

Moroccans, and 13 percent of Egyptians appeared to be favorable toward the

United States. To deal with the deteriorating public opinion of the Middle East, the

U.S. State Department changed the name of its Arabic radio broadcasting service

from "Voice of America" to "Radio Sawa" (Radio together). Also, it changed its

whole programs especially "aimed at the young, who subliminally ingest news

bulletins between blasts of Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys" (Leonard,

2002, p. 56). Vice versa, some Arab countries have done public relations initiatives

to improve public opinion of the United States and their national images. Saudi

Arabia singly "spent more than $5 million by the September 11 anniversary and

hired prominent U.S. public relations firms, law firms, consultants and a media-

buying firm" (Zhang & Benoit, 2004, p. 162). Public opinion abroad has been

becoming one of the most decisive factors in public diplomacy.









National Brand and Image-making toward Broadened Publics

Molleda and Quinn (2004) asserted that "a national issue can become

international in an instant, impacting host, home, and transnational publics" (p. 2).

They continued, "Public relations professionals practicing in more than one

country are challenged by conflicts that impact their organizations' or clients'

activities and reputation in more than one location at the same time." In this sense,

as Signitzer and Coombs (1992) argued, "governments are recognized as actors in

international public relations" (p. 138).

Zhang and Benoit (2004) claimed that "nations have images, and relations

between countries have always been shaped by images" (p. 161). Also, "Image is

still a central concept to the field of public relations" (Benoit, 1997, p. 177). In fact,

"perceptions are more important than reality" (Benoit, 1997, p. 178).

It is well known that "like any brand, nations have individual DNA or

fingerprints that are unique unto themselves-no two nations are alike" (Jaworski &

Fosher, 2003, p. 100). Moreover, "human beings live within brands and branded

systems that shape the way they act, think, and are perceived" (Jaworski & Fosher,

2003, p. 99). Therefore, public relations professionals concerning public diplomacy

must have new ways of thinking about national brand and its importance. As

Wakefield (2001) described, "all entities whether domestic or multinational, strive

to preserve their reputations from internal and external threats. They all try to

identify and build relationships with vital publics" (p. 642).

In addition, it is important to note that today's public diplomacy must deal

with entire publics rather than limited number of government officials as traditional









diplomacy did. For instance, because Mexico often disregarded general publics

from their public diplomacy initiatives toward the United States, the U.S. publics

did not think Mexico as savvy and strategic governments in the past (Johnson,

2005). Transnational NGOs, grassroots support organizations (GRSOs), and

domestic grassroots organizations (GSOs) are emerging publics in the area of

public diplomacy as well. It is estimated that 25,000 transnational NGOs, 50,000

GRSOs, and hundreds of thousands of GROs are operating worldwide and still

counting (Fisher, 2003). Those NGOs are crucial in terms of successful public

diplomacy because they have "three key resources not readily available to foreign

governments: credibility, expertise, and appropriate networks" (Leonard, 2002, p.

54). Transnational NGOs and world governments already collaborate with each

other in working out many global issues, such as Latin America's civil wars or

Africa's famine problems. All in all, today's world governments and their public

diplomacy initiatives must incorporate much more broadened foreign publics than

in the past.

Propaganda and Public Diplomacy

Due to aforementioned globalization and new technologies, mass media have

become critical apparatuses, which help create a country's international images.

According to Kunczik (2003), "mass media reporting of foreign affairs often

governs what kind of image of a country or culture has in another country" (p.

410). Moreover, media is recognized as one of the most important tools in the

public diplomacy area in terms of providing related information to policymakers

and mediating between governments and foreign publics (Malek, 2003). Thus,









many public diplomacy practitioners are trying hard to make publicity through both

domestic and international media, because it is a potent public relations tool to

influence governments and public opinion (Lee, 2005).

Besides, it is well known that media often play an important role in publics'

agenda-setting processes. According to Berger (2001), "setting priorities and acting

on an agenda of social issues are among the most important political activities

undertaken within social systems, and agenda setting may be conceptualized as

active political participation" (p. 92). He also asserted that "mass media call

attention to certain social issues and problems; this media agenda influences the

public's awareness of, and concerns about, such issues; in turn, the public agenda

may influence the policy agenda and policy implementation" (p. 94).

However, more often than not, public diplomacy activities through mass media

have been suspiciously looked as propaganda (Gower, 2005). Manheim and

Albritton (1984) warned the possibility of manipulation in disseminating

information across national boundaries. They argued:

Foreign affairs are generally unobtrusive. The public is unlikely to have any
direct experience with them. In the absence of direct personal contact,
individuals' images of the actors and events on the international scene will
be heavily, and unavoidably, media dependent. (p. 643)

These tendencies of being too dependent on media about foreign affairs and

possible manipulation by governments or media often provoke aversion or even

fear among general publics about public diplomacy initiatives. For example, the

U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) has stood still to "protect American

democracy from the threat of fascism...to provide the government a means to track









potential foreign propagandists in the country... and to put its stamp of disapproval

on ideological material" (Gower, 2005, pp. 38-39).

Lasswell (1927) defined propaganda as follows:

Propaganda refers solely to the control of opinion by significant symbols,
or, to speak more concretely and less accurately, by stories, rumors, reports,
pictures and other forms of social communication. Propaganda is concerned
with the management of opinions and attitudes by the direct manipulation of
social suggestion rather than by altering other conditions in the environment
or in the organism. (p. 9)

The term "propaganda" usually implies negative connotation because it often

reminds people of wartime propaganda, which mainly focused on false statements

and manipulation. By and large, people have a certain level of fear grounded on the

perception that propaganda often has been executed very deliberately with special

purposes, and sometimes it is operated so covertly that they do not notice if they

are influenced by messages (Gower, 2005). However, not everyone sees only the

malicious respects of propaganda. Stevenson (1994) speculated that "if propaganda

is defined, minus the historical baggage, as an effort to inform and persuade, it

takes on a less sinister connotation and embraces a range of activities that we

consider normal and reasonable" (p. 346).

It is true that today's public diplomacy initiatives cannot entirely escape from

the ghost of propaganda. As a matter of fact, some countries are still disseminating

propagandistic messages to foreign publics. Nevertheless, it is also true that today's

world governments cannot control and manipulate all information and

communication as they did in the past. As mentioned earlier, "global media and

technology have made public diplomacy an open communication forum" (Von

Eschen, 2005, p. 337). To implement public diplomacy effectively, world









governments should be aware of rapidly changing global situations and adjust

themselves to the new paradigm. The following statement is worth being

considered carefully by public diplomacy practitioners:

Lesson one in "Principles of Public Relations" is to do right and report it.
The truth always emerges, albeit often too late to correct wrong-headed
policies, but eventually truth does emerge. No one can put a permanent
facade around a problem. No one can obscure error indefinitely. If words
mirror actions from the start, the rewards are enduring trust and credibility.
(Spitzer, 2003, p. 9A)

Internet Technology and Public Diplomacy

To say again, globalization and new technologies have changed today's public

diplomacy environment permanently. Peterson (2002) claimed:

Globalization, the increased speed and greatly diminished cost of processing
and transmitting information, the reach of 24/7 television programming,
global news media (AM, FM, and shotwave radio, and satellite TV),
growing Internet penetration, and 'smart' mobile phones are central
characteristics of the twenty-first-century foreign policy environment... The
information age has democratized communication by providing freedom of
access to information, the ability to voice opinions, and the opportunity to
enter debate. (n.p.)

Perhaps, the Internet is the most conspicuous technological advance in this

information revolution era. So far, many studies concerning the correlation

between Internet technologies and communication behavioral changes in human

society have been conducted. Public diplomacy and public relations areas are no

exception. Brown and Studemeister (2003) argued that growing numbers of non-

state actors including NGOs, activist groups, and general citizens on the World

Wide Web have asked nations' foreign affairs ministries to provide more

sophisticated and savvy communication and relationship building skills. Many

world governments are already doing vigorous communication and relationship









building activities with foreign publics through the Internet. For example, "via its

Web site, the foreign ministry of Israel-an early adopter of the Internet-has been

providing access to key speeches by Israeli leaders and the full text of agreements

and other important documents as well as maps in relation to the Middle East peace

process" (Brown & Studemeister, 2003, pp. 589-590). According to Anzinger

(2002), there are more than 17,000 governmental institutions' Web sites from more

than 220 countries and territories worldwide as of June 2002.

Curtin and Gaither (2004) also stressed increasing importance of the Internet

in public diplomacy. They pointed out that "the public (the American public)

obtained most of its information about distant lands from the news media, but in

the last decade the World Wide Web has been credited with making the global

local and with allowing information providers to bypass media gatekeepers" (pp.

25-26). They continued, "In the weeks following September 11, the public turned

to government web sites in record numbers for information on terrorism" (p. 26).

They explored international agenda-building and communication processes on the

Internet by content-analyzing some Middle Eastern governments' English-

language Web sites. Based on the results, they concluded that "more than half the

countries in the Middle East do not have official English-language government

sites and are missing out on a major international relations communication tool"

(Curtin & Gaither, 2004, p. 32). Since English, which is used by 35.2 percent of

total online population (Global Reach, 2004), is usually accepted as the universal

language of the Internet, governmental Web sites not having an English version are

likely to have difficulty in reaching significant number of Web-surfing foreign









publics. In the mean time, those governmental Web sites, which offer an English

version, generally provide good public diplomacy information and solicit non-state

actors to dialogic communications (Curtin & Gaither, 2004). However, their study

is somewhat limited in articulating the comprehensive paradigm shift of public

diplomacy in that only Middle Eastern countries were analyzed. Therefore, further

research with broader global scope is demanded. O'Connell (2005) hypothesized

that world states can be authorized their sovereignty by their membership of the

United Nations. On balance, based on the literature review, some the research

questions of this study were drawn:

RQ 1: Among the 191 members of the United Nations, to what extent do

governments provide public diplomacy Web sites to their publics?

RQ2: Among the 191 members of the United Nations, to what extent do

governments offer English-language based public diplomacy Web sites to

their publics?

Realpolitik vs. Noopolitik

It is undisputable that public diplomacy is in the middle of paradigm

transition. The transition can be described as from coercion to cooperation and

from one-way information flow to two-way information flow.

Ronfeldt and Arquilla (1999) predicted there will be huge changes in the

public diplomacy area, resulted from the information revolution. They argued that

the diplomatic world has not been the subject of internal and external competition

among countries so far, compared to the business and military worlds. However,

"the diplomatic world is now beginning to feel the heat of competition, especially









from agile nonstate actors that are being strengthened by the information

revolution" (Ronfeldt & Arquilla, 1999, n.p.). They expected so-called "netwar"

will incorporate non-state actors, such as transnational NGOs, prominent

individuals, and armed organizations in the realm of public diplomacy, and will

require state governments to have interagency cooperation with those entities more

than ever. World public diplomacy cannot escape from the extensive dynamics,

which are "the dual shift in power (a) from large, hidebound actors to smaller,

more agile ones, like NGOs; and (b) to actors, large or small, that can move from

stand-alone to networked forms of organization and behavior" (Ronfeldt &

Arquilla, 1999, n.p.).

In addition, Ronfeldt and Arquilla (1999) asserted the wane of realpolitik and

the emergence of noopolitik. According to Brown and Studemeister (2003),

realpolitik represents "international system of sovereign nation-state in which

strong ones exert control over others in pursuit of their own national interests" (p.

585), whereas noopolitik implies "a statecraft that emphasizes the role of soft

power in expressing ideas, values, norms, and ethics through all manner of media"

(p. 585). Ronfeldt and Arquilla (1999) said that the information age will

revolutionize classic diplomatic assumptions stemming from realpolitik, and

encourage the emergence of the new diplomacy paradigm based on noopolitik. The

emergence of noopolitik means not only active participation of non-state actors but

an important role of dialogic communication and relationship building via all kinds

of communication channels.









In recent years, realpolitik is facing growing limitations in public diplomacy.

Ronfeldt and Arquilla (1999) pointed out the decrease of realpolitik value:

It (realpolitik) works best where states fully rule the international system-
but nonstate actors from the worlds of commerce and civil society are
gaining strength and reshaping the global environment. It works best where
states can maneuver freely and independently-but complex transnational
interconnections increasingly constrain this freedom. It works best where
national interests dominate decision making-but a host of "global issues"
is arising that transcends national interests. It works best where states
respond mainly to coercive calculations involving hard power-but state
and nonstate actors are increasingly operating in terms of soft power. It
works best where ethics matter little-but ethics are increasingly coming to
the fore as global civil-society actors gain a voice through all types of
media.... Furthermore, realpolitik works best where diplomacy can be
conducted mainly in the dark, away from public scrutiny, under strong state
control, and without necessarily having to share information with many
actors-but the information revolution is making all that increasingly
difficult and favors actors who can operate in the light and gain advantage
from information sharing. (n.p.)

On the other hand, they also presented favoring trends of noopolitik:

1. The growing web of global interconnection: The era of global
interdependence began 1960s, and many trends its theorists emphasize
continue to come true. Interdependence was spurred by the rise of
transnational and multinational actors, especially multinational corporations
and multilateral organizations. Now, a new generation of actors-such as
news media, electronic communications services, and human rights
organizations-are increasingly "going global," some to the point of
claiming that they are "stateless" and denying that they are "national" or
"multinational" in character. They are redefining themselves as global
actors with global agendas, and pursuing global expansion through ties with
like-minded counterparts.
2. The continued strengthening of global civil-society actors: Because of the
information revolution, advanced societies are on the threshold of
developing a vast sensory apparatus for watching what is happening around
the world. This may mean placing a premium on state-society coordination,
including the toleration of "citizen diplomacy" and the creation of "deep
coalitions" between state and civil society actors.
3. The rise of soft power: Realpolitik allows for information strategy as a
tool of propaganda, deception, and manipulation, but seems averse to
accepting "knowledge projection" as amounting to a true tool of statecraft.
However, for noopolitik to take hold, information will have to become a









distinct dimension of grand strategy. The rise of soft power is essential for
the emergence of the second path, and thus of noopolitik.
4. The importance of "cooperative advantages": States and other actors seek
to develop "comparative advantages" vis a vis each other. This has mostly
meant competitive advantages, especially when it comes to great-power
rivalries conducted in terms of realpolitik. But in the information age
cooperative advantages will become ever more important. Indeed, societies
that improve their abilities to cooperate with friends and allies may also gain
competitive advantages against rivals.
5. The formation of the global noosphere: Noosphere represents a "web of
living thought." The impetus for creating a global noosphere is more likely
to emanate from activist NGOs, other civil-society actors, and individuals
dedicated to freedom of information and communications and to the spread
of ethical values and norms. Noosphere is likely to encompass values, such
as openness, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, humane behavior, respect
for human rights, and a preference for peaceful conflict resolution. (n.p.)

Based on the preceding literature review, the additional research questions and

new hypotheses were drawn:

RQ3: Among the members of the United Nations providing an English

version of public diplomacy Web site, to what extent do governments try to

build dialogic relationships with their publics?

H1: A political system of a state (democracy/not democracy) influences a

quality of dialogic public relations strategies through its public diplomacy

Web site.

H2: An economic scale of a state (GDP scale) influences a quality of

dialogic public relations strategies through its public diplomacy Web site.

H3: A level of freedom of a state (free/partly free/not free) influences a

quality of dialogic public relations strategies through its public diplomacy

Web site.

RQ4: Among the members of the United Nations providing an English

version of public diplomacy Web site, to what extent do governments try to









incorporate non-state actors, including NGOs, civil-society groups, and

individuals in dialogic relationships through their Web sites?

H4: A political system of a state (democracy/not democracy) influences a

quality of non-state actor relations through its public diplomacy Web site.

H5: An economic scale of a state (GDP scale) influences a quality of non-

state actor relations through its public diplomacy Web site.

H6: A level of freedom of a state (free/partly free/not free) influences a

quality of non-state actor relations through its public diplomacy Web site.

RQ5: Among the members of the United Nations providing an English

version of public diplomacy Web site, to what extent do governments deal

with global issues, such as AIDS and human rights, through their Web sites?

H7: A political system of a state (democracy/not democracy) influences a

government's level of concern about global issues through its public

diplomacy Web site.

H8: An economic scale of a state (GDP scale) influences a government's

level of concern about global issues through its public diplomacy Web site.

H9: A level of freedom of a state (free/partly free/not free) influences a

government's level of concern about global issues through its public

diplomacy Web site.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The content analysis method was used to explore the research questions and

the hypotheses drawn by the preceding literature review. According to Kerlinger

(2000), "content analysis is a method of studying and analyzing communication in

a systematic, objective, and quantitative manner for the purpose of measuring

variables" (as cited in Wimmer & Dominick, 2003, p. 141). The method is suitable

for this study because it is one of the most effective approaches to analyze contents

of media (Wimmer & Dominick, 2003). Moreover, McMillan (2000) asserted that

even in the Internet context differing from traditional media, such as newspapers

and televisions, the method can be useful in analyzing data and contents. Previous

studies concerning media and public diplomacy activities were mainly based on the

content analysis method as well (e.g., Curtin & Gaither, 2004; Johnson, 2005).

Research Design and Data Collection

To achieve the ultimate goals of the study, government Web sites of the 191

countries, which are the members of the United Nations, were examined as the

main research subjects of the study. Only foreign affairs ministry Web sites,

foreign embassy Web sites, or presidential Web sites were regarded as relevant

"public diplomacy Web sites" in this study, because those institutions are central in

public diplomacy. The research priority was given in order of foreign affairs

ministry Web sites, foreign embassy Web sites, and presidential Web sites. For

example, if a country had all of those three governmental Web sites, only a foreign









affairs ministry Web site was examined, and other governmental Web sites were

excluded, because usually a foreign affairs ministry is recognized as a principal

institution of public diplomacy. If a country did not have a foreign affairs ministry

Web site, but have a foreign embassy Web site, then that foreign embassy Web site

was the unit of analysis for that country. If a country had multiple foreign embassy

Web sites, the unit of analysis was chosen randomly. Finally, if a country did not

have any Web site mentioned above, that country was regarded as not providing

governmental Web sites in relation to public diplomacy for publics.

The Internet data base, Governments on the WWW

(http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/) was used as the main source of this study to

identify world governments' Web sites. Gunnar Anzinger, the establisher of the

data base, has updated almost all government-related Web sites worldwide as of

June 26, 2002. The researcher believed this Web site is one of the most

comprehensive and up-to-date sources regarding world governments' Web sites. In

case that the Internet data base did not seem to have the most recent links of

governments' Web sites, Web searches through the Google were accompanied.

Finally, secondary research, which is mainly concerned with a country's

political (political status), economic (economic scale), and cultural (freedom)

variables, was taken into account to make a comparative analysis possible among

world governments. Statistical data from credible institutions comprised the

secondary research. The researcher referred to the world governments' status index

from the Nationmaster.com for the countries' political systems, and used the 2004

World Bank statistics in terms of the subject countries' GDPs. In addition, for









freedom levels of the countries, the researcher cited the "Freedom in the world

2006" index of the Freedom House.

Theoretical Foundation of the Coding Instrument

The coding instrument of the analysis was designed mainly based on the three

previous studies (Kent & Taylor, 1998; Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001; Curtin &

Gaither, 2004).

First of all, in 1998, Kent and Taylor offered important public relations

strategies in terms of creating dialogic relationships with Internet publics. Kent and

Taylor (1998) contended:

... Internet communication can include the "personal touch" that makes
public relations effective...entire "communities" of diasporic groups are
located in "cyberspace." These publics who constitute (often-times global)
communities unto themselves might otherwise remain disparate were it not
for the Internet and the WWW. Thus, the Internet may be one of the only
ways to reach traditionally isolated publics. (p. 323)

Kent and Taylor (1998) also argued the importance of dialogic communication

in relationship building. Based on the previous dialogue-related discourse including

ideas of Karlberg, Buber, Habermas, and Johannesen, Kent & Taylor (1998)

asserted that "As a dialogic medium, the Internet may be viewed as a 'convivial

tool'" (p. 324). In addition, they concluded the following five principles for the

effective dialogic relationship building through a Web site:

1. The dialogic loop: A dialogic loop allows publics to query organizations
and, more importantly, it offers organizations the opportunity to respond
questions, concerns and problems.
2. The usefulness of information: Informational efforts can provide Web site
visitors with contact addresses, telephone numbers, and electronic-mail
address of organizational members, external experts, share holders, and
those holding valid competing/contradictory positions. Information is made
available to publics not to stifle debate or win their accent, but to allow
them to engage an organization in dialogue as an informed partner.









3. The generation of return visits: Sites should contain features that make
them attractive for repeat visits such as updated information, changing
issues, special forums, new commentaries, on-line question and answer
sessions, and on-line "experts" to answer questions for interested visitors.
4. The intuitiveness/ease of the interface: A great deal of a Web site's
content should be textual rather than graphical-text loads faster than
graphics, and well typeset pages can actually be more effective attention
getters than a graphic that takes 30 seconds to load.
5. The rule of conservation of visitors: Web sites should include only
"essential links" with clearly marked paths for visitors to return to your site.
(pp. 326-331)

Along with the same line with the aforementioned study, Taylor, Kent, and

White (2001) proposed the methodological guidelines in terms of dialogic

relationship building through a Web site:

1. Ease of interface is facilitated by: having site maps (or links to site maps)
clearly identifiable on a home page; ensuring that major links to the rest of
the site are clearly identified on the home page; incorporating a search
engine box (or a link to a search box) on home pages; creating image maps
that are self-explanatory; and incorporating minimal graphic reliance into
site design.
2. Usefulness of information is facilitated by: press releases, speeches,
downloadable graphics, clear statement about organizational positions on
policy issues... statements on the philosophy and mission of the
organization... links to relevant political leaders making it easy for
interested individuals to express their opinions on issues.
3. Conservation of visitors is facilitated by: the presence of important
information (or organizational messages) on the first page; the amount of
time that the site loaded on a medium speed, networked computer; and a
clear posting of the date and time the site was last updated.
4. Generation of return visits is facilitated by: providing links to other Web
sites; appealing to visitors with explicit statements inviting them to return;
encouraging visitors to "bookmark this page now" to facilitate easy return;
the announcement of regularly scheduled news forums; providing visitors
with question and answer forums;... offering visitors downloadable and
regularly updated, information; offering visitors information that can be
automatically delivered through regular mail or e-mail; and the posting of
news stories within the last 30 days.
5. Dialogic loop is facilitated by: opportunities for visitors to send messages
to the organization; opportunities for individuals to vote on issues; the
option to request regular information updates; and the option for visitors to
fill out surveys identifying priorities and expressing opinions on issues. (pp.
269-271)










Finally, Curtin and Gaither (2004) provided the critical methodology

foundation for this research. Curtin and Gaither (2004) analyzed "all available

English-language government and presidential web sites in the Middle East..." (p.

28). Based on their previous study, it is justifiable to compare foreign affairs

ministry Web sites, foreign embassy Web sites, and presidential Web sites as a

nation's official Web sites for public diplomacy and foreign relationship building.

Also, in relation to RQ4 and RQ5, the level of prominence about each subject (non-

state actors and global issue) was measured within three or less "clicks" from the

main page: 1 = main page, 2 = one click from the main page, and 3 = two clicks

from the main page (Yeon, 2005).

Pretest and Coder Training

In terms of the coding process, two coders, including the researcher and

another graduate student filled out the coding instrument respectively. To set the

coding instrument and code book in good order, a pretest was conducted with 10

percent of the research samples, which equals 19 countries' governmental Web

sites. Those pretest samples were randomly selected among the 191 UN-affiliated

countries. The researcher used the Holsti's reliability method (1969) to measure

intercoder reliability of the coding instrument. After resolving few disagreements

between the coders, intercoder reliability of each categories of the coding

instrument ranged from .711 to .921, and the overall intercoder reliability of the

coding instrument reached .787.









Data Analysis

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 12.0 for Windows) was

utilized to content-analyze the subjects of the study. As for RQ1 and RQ2,

frequencies statistics were conducted, because those questions mainly dealt with

the presence of the countries' governmental Web sites. As for RQ3, frequencies

statistics were implemented to analyze presence of dialogic features, which were

based on Taylor, Kent, and White's previous study (2001). To verify H1, H2, and

H3, Multiple Linear Regression tests were conducted to analyze the level of

influence of each independent variable (a country's political system, economic

scale, and level of freedom) on the dependent variable, which is a quality of

dialogic relationship building strategies through a governmental Web site.

Regarding the RQ4 and RQ5, frequencies statistics were implemented to measure

the degree of world governments' efforts on relationship building with non-state

actors and global issues respectively. As for H4, H5, and H6, Multiple Linear

Regression tests were conducted as well. Finally, to verify H7, H8, and H9,

Multinominal Logistic Regression tests were utilized, because the dependent

variable of each hypothesis (a country's statement regarding global issues through

its public diplomacy Web site) has nominal value (presence/absence).














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

This study basically aims to explore the five research questions and nine

hypotheses. Content analyses of the 191 member countries of the United Nations

were conducted to examine the research questions and to test a set of hypotheses.

The rest of the chapter summarizes the research results.

Research Question 1

Research question one inquires the extent of presence of governmental Web

sites regarding public diplomacy among the 191 UN member countries. According

to the frequencies statistics drawn from the Internet database, Governments on the

WWW (http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/), and the Web search engine (Google)

references, 166 countries (86.9 %) manage governmental Web sites relevant to

public diplomacy activities, whereas 25 countries (13.1 %) do not have any

governmental Web site satisfying the criterion (see Figure 4-1). Countries not

providing any relevant public diplomacy Web sites are as follows: Bhutan,

Burundi, Central African Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North

Korea), Djibuti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia,

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Oman, Saint Lucia, Samoa,

San Marino, Seychelles, Somalia, Syrian Arab Republic, Timor-Leste, Tonga,

Tunisia, and Vanuatu.















Public diplomacy
Web sites'
absence/presence
U Absence
U Presence





























Figure 4-1. Public Diplomacy Web Sites' Absence/Presence



Analyzing the number of public diplomacy Web sites (foreign affairs ministry

Web site, foreign embassy Web site, and presidential Web site) that a country has

on average among the 166 UN member countries providing relevant Web sites, the

mean value was 2.02 (SD = .77). In other words, world's 166 countries are

maintaining slightly over two public diplomacy Web sites on average. As shown in

Table 4-1, 47 countries (28.3 %) have only one public diplomacy Web site, 69









countries (41.6 %) have two public diplomacy Web sites, and 50 countries (30.1

%) have all three relevant Web sites.

Table 4-1. Number of Public Diplomacy Web Sites Utilized by Each Country

Number of sites Number of countries Percent
One Web site 47 28.3
Two Web sites 69 41.6
Three Web sites 50 30.1
Total 166 100.0

According to the aforementioned research protocol of the study and Web sites'

availability of a country, 88 foreign affairs ministry Web sites (53.0 %), 77 foreign

embassy Web sites (46.4 %), and one presidential Web site (0.6 %) were analyzed

for the study (see Table 4-2).

Table 4-2. Number of Analyzed Web Site by a Type of Organization

Type of organization Frequency Percent
Foreign affairs ministry Web site 88 53.0
Foreign embassy Web site 77 46.4
Presidential Web site 1 .6
Total 166 100.0

Research Question 2

Research question two asks whether or not the UN member countries offer an

English version public diplomacy Web sites. Web searches through the Internet

database, Governments on the WWW and the Web search engine Google resulted

on 154 countries (80.6 %) provide English version of public diplomacy Web sites

to their publics. In addition, 12 countries (6.3 %) do not provide English Web sites,

while they have relevant public diplomacy Web sites on the Internet under their

foreign affairs ministries, embassies, or presidential offices (see Figure 4-2). The

following 12 countries do not provide English public diplomacy Web sites:










Algeria, Benin, Bolivia, Comoros, Congo, Gabon, Mali, Mauritania, Nicaragua,

Senegal, Tajikistan, and Togo.


Absence/presence of
English version Web
12 countries (7.2%) site
0 Absence
U Presence



























Figure 4-2. Absence/Presence of English Version Web Site


Research Question 3

Research question three deals with the extent of dialogic relationship building

strategies utilized by world countries through their public diplomacy Web sites.

The extent of dialogic relationship building strategies of each country was

measured by the number of dialogic relationship building features (total of 25

items), suggested by Taylor, Kent, and White (2001).











The mean score of dialogic relationship building features utilized by 154


world countries' public diplomacy Web sites in which English version is available


was 12.3 (SD = 4.29) and the median was 13. The foreign affairs ministry Web site


of Croatia was the most sophisticated public diplomacy Web site in terms of


dialogic relationship building strategies with 21 features out of 25. On the contrary,


the Embassy of Pakistan in Seoul, Republic of Korea Web site applied only one


dialogic relationship building strategy (major links to rest of the site).


40-







30-


-




S20-



10-
o






10-


n-I-= L-


0.00 5.00
0.00 5.00


10.00 15.00
Number of items


Mean= 12.3117
Std. Dev. = 4.29549
N 154


20.00


Figure 4-3 The Histogram of Web Site Dialogic Relationship Building Strategies










Classifying each category of dialogic relationship building strategies (ease of

interface, usefulness of information to publics, conservation of visitors, return

visits, and dialogic loop), world countries have the average of 2.7 items (SD = .08)

out of four regarding ease of interface, the average of 2.7 items (SD = .10) out of

five regarding usefulness of information to publics, the average of 2.0 items (SD =

.08) out of three regarding conservation of visitors, the average of 3.8 items (SD =

.13) out of nine regarding return visits, and the average of 1.1 items (SD = .05) out

of four regarding dialogic loop.

Table 4-3. Occurrence of Dialogic Relationship Building Items (in order of

frequencies)

Category Number of countries Percent
Major link to rest of the site 153 99.4
Links to other Web sites 144 93.5
Short loading time (less than four seconds) 136 88.3
Opportunity for user-response 136 88.3
Downloadable graphics 130 84.4
Things that can be requested by mail or e-mail 129 83.8
Low reliance on graphics 127 82.5
Downloadable information 111 72.1
Press releases 109 70.8
Speeches 99 64.3
Important info available on 1st page 94 61.0
Posting of last updated time and date 79 51.3
Search engine box 76 49.4
Posting news stories within 15 days 65 42.2
Site map 60 39.0
Explicit statement invites user to return 60 39.0
Links to political leaders 41 26.6
FAQ's or Q & A's 38 24.7
Audio/Visual capacity 37 24.0
Calendar of events 32 20.8
Offers regular information through e-mail 25 16.2
Bookmark now 6 3.9
News forum (regularly scheduled) 5 3.2
Opportunity to vote on issues 2 1.3
Survey to voice opinion on issues 2 1.3











Research Question 4


Research question four asks the extent of dialogic relationship building


strategies with non-state actors, such as NGOs, multinational corporations, and


individuals, utilized by world countries through their public diplomacy Web sites.


When analyzing the level of prominence of non-state actor relations through world


countries' public diplomacy Web sites, eight countries (5.2 %) have related


information on their first page of the Web sites, 100 countries (64.9 %) have


related information on their second layer of the Web sites, 16 countries (10.4 %)


have related information on their third or more layer of the Web sites, and 30


countries (19.5 %) do not provide any relevant information regarding non-state


actors (see Figure 4-4).



100-




80-

so


S60-
0
o


3 40
Z


1st layer 2nd layer 3rd or more
Level of prominence


Figure 4-4. The Bar Chart of Non-state Actor Relations Information Prominence


none









In terms of world countries' dialogic relationship building strategies with non-

state actors, the extent of dialogic relationship building strategies of each country

was measured by the number of dialogic relationship building features (total of

seven items) in non-state actor related pages. The mean score of dialogic

relationship building features with non-state actors utilized by world countries'

public diplomacy Web sites was 1.32 (SD = 1.24) and the median was 1.0. Fifty-

three countries (34.4 %) do not provide any dialogic relationship building items to

non-state actors, 39 countries (25.3 %) have one item, 28 countries (18.2 %) have

two items, 29 countries (18.8 %) have three items, four countries (2.6 %) have four

items, and only one country (0.6 %), which is the United States of America, has

five dialogic relationship building items (see Table 4-4).

Table 4-4. Frequencies of Non-state Actor Dialogic Relationship Building Features

Number of dialogic relationship building features Number of countries Percent
None 53 34.4
1 39 25.3
2 28 18.2
3 29 18.8
4 4 2.6
5 1 .6
Total 154 100.0













60 -



50 -



S40 -

0
30-

c

20 -



10-


0


0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
Number of items


ean = 1.3182
Std. Dev. = 1.23513
= 154


4.00 5.00


Figure 4-5. The Histogram of Non-state Actor Dialogic Relationship Building

Strategies



In addition, when analyzing frequencies of each dialogic relationship building


item utilized by world countries' public diplomacy Web sites, an e-mail address or


link was the most frequently used feature (see Table 4-5).


Table 4-5. Occurrence of Non-state Actor Dialogic Relationship Building Items


Category Number of countries Percent
E-mail address 91 59.1
Viewer choice 60 39.0
Search engine box 42 27.3
Bulletin board 8 5.2
Chat room 2 1.3
Blog 0 0.0
Other 0 0.0










Research Question 5

Research question five asks the extent of world governments' awareness and

concern regarding global issues through their public diplomacy Web sites. The

analysis revealed that 86 countries (55.8 %) do not present their appreciation of

immediate global issues, whereas 68 countries (44.2 %) deal with global issue

discourse through their public diplomacy Web sites (see Figure 4-6).


Global issue
statement
U Absence
U Presence





























Figure 4-6. Absence/Presence of Global Issue Concern


Furthermore, the analysis in relation to the level of global issue prominence

revealed that among 68 countries demonstrating their concern about global issues








43



through their public diplomacy Web sites, six countries (8.8 %) have related


information on the first page of the Web sites, 37 countries (54.4 %) have related


information on the second page of the Web sites, and 25 countries (36.8 %) have


related information on the third or more page of the Web sites (see Figure 4-7).


100-


so-


80-





S60-
0




1 40-


20-

20-
-Q


1st layer


I I
2nd layer 3rd or more
Level of prominence


Figure 4-7. The Bar Chart of Global Issue Information Prominence



Hypothesis 1, 2, and 3


Hypothesis 1, 2, and 3 mainly aim to test correlations between a country's


political status, economic scale, and level of freedom and its extent of overall


dialogic relationship building strategy application through public diplomacy Web


(I .









site respectively. Among 154 world countries providing relevant English-language

based public diplomacy Web sites, eight countries (Andorra, Brunei, Cuba, Iraq,

Liechtenstein, Monaco, Myanmar, and Tuvalu) were excluded from the analysis

due to their unavailability of GDP data. The Multiple Linear Regression method

was used to support or reject the assumed hypotheses.

The regression model was significant (F (3, 146) = 9.013, p = .000) with 99

percent confidence. Also, based on the R square value of the model, all

independent variables, which are a country's political status, economic scale, and

level of freedom, have 16 percent of explanation power to the variance of the

extent of overall dialogic relationship building strategies through public diplomacy

Web sites (see Table 4-6).

Table 4-6. The Regression Model Summary

Adjusted R
Model R R Square Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .400(a) .160 .142 3.98840
(a) Predictors: (Constant), Freedom, Economic, Political
Sum of
Model Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 430.117 3 143.372 9.013 .000(a)
Residual 2258.842 142 15.907
Total 2688.959 145
(a) Predictors: (Constant), Freedom, Economic, Political

Table 4-7. Coefficients (H1 through H3)

Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 7.399 2.650 2.792 .006
Political .548 1.083 .057 .506 .614
Economic .000 .000 .251 3.223 .002
Freedom 1.736 .626 .314 2.772 .006









In addition, the coefficients of each independent variable revealed that a

country's economic scale and level of freedom have significant influence on its

overall dialogic relationship building strategies through a public diplomacy Web

site, whereas political status is not significantly correlated with a country's level of

dialogic relationship building strategy application with 99 percent confidence (see

Table 4-7). In sum, H1, "A political system of a state (democracy/not democracy)

influences a quality of dialogic public relations strategies through its public

diplomacy Web site" was rejected, while H2, "An economic scale of a state (GDP

scale) influences a quality of dialogic public relations strategies through its public

diplomacy Web site" and H3, "A level of freedom of a state (free/partly free/not

free) influences a quality of dialogic public relations strategies through its public

diplomacy Web site" were supported based on the statistical results.

Hypothesis 4, 5, and 6

Hypothesis 4, 5, and 6 are to examine correlations between a country's

political status, economic scale, and level of freedom and its extent of dialogic

relationship building strategy utilization with non-state actors, such as NGOs,

multinational corporations, and individuals. One hundred and forty six UN member

countries were analyzed as well as Hypothesis 1, 2, and 3, because of the missing

data of eight countries' GDP scale. Also, the Multiple Linear Regression method

was utilized to test statistical significance between variables.

The regression model turned out to be valid (F (3, 146) = 11.517, p = .000),

along with almost 20 percent of explanation power of the independent variables

(political status, economic scale, and level of freedom) to the variance of the









dependent variable (extent of dialogic relationship building strategies with non-

state actors) (see Table 4-8).

Table 4-8. The Regression Model Summary

Adjusted R
Model R R Square Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .442(a) .196 .179 1.12579
(a) Predictors: (Constant), Freedom, Economic, Political
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 43.790 3 14.597 11.517 .000(a)
Residual 179.970 142 1.267
Total 223.760 145
(a) Predictors: (Constant), Freedom, Economic, Political

Table 4-9. Coefficients (H4 through H6)

Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) -.709 .748 -.948 .345
Political .564 .306 .203 1.845 .067
Economic .000 .000 .347 4.554 .000
Freedom .537 .177 .336 3.036 .003

Taking into consideration of the coefficients of each independent variable, a

country's economic scale and level of freedom have significant influence on its

level of dialogic relationship building strategies with non-state actors with 99

percent confidence. However, political status is still not significant in relation to a

country's level of dialogic relationship building strategy application (see Table 4-

9). Therefore, H4, "A political system of a state (democracy/not democracy)

influences a quality of non-state actor relations through its public diplomacy Web

site." was not supported. On the other hand, H5, "An economic scale of a state

(GDP scale) influences a quality of non-state actor relations through its public

diplomacy Web site" and H6, "A level of freedom of a state (free/partly free/not









free) influences a quality of non-state actor relations through its public diplomacy

Web site" were statistically supported.

Hypothesis 7, 8, and 9

Hypothesis 7, 8, and 9 aim to verify correlations between a country's political

status, economic scale, and level of freedom and its extent of concern about global

issues through public diplomacy Web site respectively. Also, 146 UN member

countries were analyzed for the statistical test. In terms of statistical methodology,

the Multinominal Logistic Regression method was conducted because the

dependent variable (a government's level of concern about global issues) was

coded with nominal value (absence/presence).

The regression model for hypothesis 7, 8, and 9 was significant with 99

percent confidence (2 (3, 146) = 35.040, p = .000) (see Table 4-10).

Table 4-10. The Regression Model Summary


Model -2 Log Likelihood Chi-Square df Sig.
Intercept Only 200.642
Final 165.602 35.040 3 .000

Furthermore, according to the coefficients (Wald statistics) of each

independent variable, a country's economic scale has significant influence on its

extent of concern regarding global issues through public diplomacy Web site with

99 percent confidence, whereas a country's political status and level of freedom are

not significant predictors in explaining the likelihood of a country's global issue

care (see Table 4-11). On balance, H7, "A political system of a state

(democracy/not democracy) influences a government's level of concern about

global issues through its public diplomacy Web site" and H9, "A level of freedom









of a state (free/partly free/not free) influences a government's level of concern

about global issues through its public diplomacy Web site" were rejected.

However, H8, "An economic scale of a state (GDP scale) influences a

government's level of concern about global issues through its public diplomacy

Web site" was sustained.

Table 4-11. Coefficients (H7 through H9)

Global(a) B Std. Error Wald df Sig.


Absence Intercept 3.294 1.531 4.628 1 .031
Political -.991 .606 2.674 1 .102
Economic .000 .000 10.960 1 .001
Freedom -.518 .360 2.071 1 .150
(a) The reference category is: Presence.














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Current Status of World Countries' Public Diplomacy Web Sites

As assumed earlier, it seems world countries are desirably adjusting

themselves to the new paradigm of public diplomacy, keeping pace with

globalization and technological developments. Almost 87 percent (166 countries)

of the 191 UN member countries maintains relevant public diplomacy Web sites.

Including quasi-public diplomacy Web sites, such as ministry of tourism Web sites

or ministry of international investments Web sites, the percentage would be higher.

Therefore, it is reaffirmed that world countries, which should be active participants

of international public diplomacy, also recognize the importance and value of Web

communication in building relationships with foreign governments and publics.

Moreover, due to relatively small expenses in managing Web sites, it seems a

large number of world countries have more than two relevant public diplomacy

Web sites, which means more communication and relationship building channels

both for world governments and concerned publics. In view of 25 countries among

the UN members, not providing relevant public diplomacy Web sites, a country's

decisive factors in the absence of public diplomacy Web sites could be social

unrest (e.g., Burundi, Liberia, Somalia, Timor-Leste), dictatorship (e.g., Central

African Republic, North Korea, Eritrea, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Syrian Arab

Republic), poor economic condition (e.g., Bhutan, Guinea, Niger), or lack of

infrastructure (e.g., Micronesia, Saint Lucia, Seychelles).









Meanwhile, among the 191 UN member countries, almost 81 percent (154

countries) of world countries accommodate English-language based public

diplomacy Web sites. Considering English is one of the most used international

languages, especially in terms of diplomatic relations, the frequencies are

somewhat favorable. Among 166 world countries maintaining relevant public

diplomacy Web sites, only 12 countries do not provide English-language based

Web sites. With respect to those 12 countries' historical profiles (Algeria, Benin,

Bolivia, Comoros, Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Mali, Mauritania, Nicaragua,

Senegal, Tajikistan, and Togo), one of the significant factors in their absence of

English-language based Web sites could be their colonial ties and subsequent

official languages (mostly French and Spanish). Nevertheless, it is inexcusable for

them not to provide English-language based public diplomacy Web sites, in that

not only even France and Spain, which once were their colonial rulers, utilize the

English version of public diplomacy Web sites, but also they isolate themselves

from English-speaking foreign publics in terms of providing relevant information

and building relationships. Again, the new paradigm of public diplomacy requires

world countries to have different ways of thinking in terms of relationship building

with a broadened spectrum of publics, such as transnational NGOs, multinational

corporations, and individuals, let alone sovereign states. Absence and lack of

viewer-friendly environment of public diplomacy Web sites could be huge

hindrance to communicating and building relationships with such dynamic

constituents of today's international diplomatic relations.









Dialogic Relationship Building in Public Diplomacy

Dialogic communication is fundamental to developing and promoting

relationships among different entities. Heath (2001) argued that publics judge each

other's standpoints and values based on exchanges of statement and

counterstatement, which compose dialogues. Especially, when it comes to the

Internet, both organizations and publics can take advantage of the dialogic nature

of the medium in relation to communicating and developing relationships with one

another.

The content analysis of world countries' public diplomacy Web sites revealed

that governments are utilizing and providing dialogic relationship building features

relatively well through their public diplomacy Web sites. On average, 154 world

countries, managing English-language based public diplomacy Web sites, have

slightly over 12 dialogue promoting features on their Web sites out of the 25

features, suggested by Taylor, Kent, and White (2001). In addition, the histogram

of world countries' Web site dialogic relationship building strategies (see Graph 4-

3), which is slightly skewed to the right, confirms the rationale is justifiable.

Considering the frequencies of each dialogic relationship building feature,

world countries still need to improve their public diplomacy Web sites in terms of

"search engine box" (49.4 %), "posting news stories within 15 days" (42.2 %),

"links to political leaders" (26.6 %), "audio/visual capacity" (24 %), "calendar of

events" (20.8 %), "offer of regular information through e-mail" (16.2 %),

"bookmark now" (3.9 %), "regularly scheduled news forum" (3.2 %), "opportunity

to vote on issues" (1.3 %), and "survey to voice opinion on issues" (1.3 %). In









particular, as a part of public relations efforts to attract world publics to healthy

dialogues and to promote mutually beneficial relationships with them, world

governments should complement Web site features related to the dialogic loop,

such as "opportunity to vote on issues," "survey to voice opinion on issues," and

"offer of regular information through e-mail."

Meanwhile, the statistical tests to validate correlations between a nation's

political, economic, and cultural variables and its level of dialogic relationship

building strategies through a public diplomacy Web site revealed that a country's

economic scale and level of freedom are significant predictors of its level of

dialogic relationship building efforts, in other words, quality of relationship

management with world publics through the Internet medium.

As mentioned earlier, due to the paradigm shift in world politics based on "soft

power," a country's economic scale has been much more important in explaining a

country's diplomatic capacity. Vice versa, successful diplomacy and mutually

beneficial relationships with global actors have become much more critical factors

in a country's economic prosperity as well in this globalization age. Without a

doubt, today's international power dynamics are controlled by the logic of

"political economy," which compounds politics and economics in relation to

allocation of limited resources of the world (Viotti & Kauppi, 2001). However, this

correlation between a country's economic scale and its public diplomacy capacity

may aggravate the "north-south divide" situation among world countries. As poorer

countries are marginalized from the center of international diplomacy, they tend to

have less economic benefits in the global setting. Considering that the Internet









medium has enormous communication power to reach publics with relatively small

expenses, and it also has democratic tendencies encouraging two-way

communication, poorer countries should pay much more attention to Web public

diplomacy not to fall behind in the global competition.

The level of freedom of each country also influences a country's public

diplomacy quality and capacity regarding the extent of dialogic relationship

building strategies through public diplomacy Web sites. This result can be

explained in two ways, which are based on internal and external motives

respectively. Firstly, it seems countries that are not tolerant about much freedom of

their citizens tend to be reluctant to make dialogic relationships with either

domestic publics or international publics. Reasons for this tendency could be

various, to name a few, religious ideologies, social unrest, or political oppression.

There are still a number of countries in the world that even regulate or limit use of

the Internet to some extent. To them, free exchange of ideas and free

communication are intolerable and unfavorable, not to mention dialogic

relationship building. Secondly, most countries that are partly free or not free tend

to have external problems in terms of international relationships, for example,

conflict with neighbor countries, involvement in international crimes, such as

terrorism, and unjustifiable political regime, such as brutal dictatorship.

Sometimes, open communication and negotiation with global actors, including

other nations, international organizations, and transnational NGOs are not an

option for them to solve those complicated problems. They tend to block any

communication flow either from inside or from outside. After all, it seems









openness and mutual understanding with concerned publics is the key to the

excellent public diplomacy as much as they are to public relations.

On the other hand, political status of a country does not seem to be a

significant factor in explaining a country's dialogic relationship building quality in

public diplomacy. At a glance, this result looks odd because it is commonsense that

a country's political status significantly affects its whole social structures

(Sriramesh & Vercic, 2003), and consequently has an influence on its public

diplomacy approaches and behavior. However, this result obviously clarifies the

new paradigm of world politics and public diplomacy. After the cessation of the

"Cold War," in other words, the collapse of communism, the world has changed

from a marketplace of ideology to a marketplace of economy. Even if a country is

not based on true democracy, it should actively participate in public diplomacy and

global public relations as a whole to compete successfully in this global war of

trade and economy. For example, the Ministry of foreign affairs of China maintains

the very sophisticated Web site and provides 16 dialogic relationship building

features, which are relatively favorable, even though its political status is still

recognized as dictatorship. On that account, a country's motivation to excellent

public diplomacy comes from economic concerns rather than political ideologies.

Furthermore, because of the increasingly intense competition among world

countries in terms of economic issues, savvier and more broadened relationship

building strategies are necessary in the field of public diplomacy.









Non-State Actor Relations in Public Diplomacy

As stated above, one of the notable aspects of the new paradigm of public

diplomacy is the call for broadened relationship building with non-state actors, who

used to be excluded from consideration of world politics and public diplomacy. For

the last few decades, many experts have pointed out the rise of non-state actors and

the decline of nation-states in terms of world power dynamics and increasing rights

and duties of non-state actors given by international agreements (O'Connell, 2005).

Therefore, positive and mutually beneficial relationship building with non-state

actors has become critical to success of public diplomacy. The analysis showed

that world countries are interested in building relationships with non-state actors,

especially, tourists, international investors, multinational corporations, foreign

correspondents, transnational NGOs, and foreign students, to name a few.

However, the analysis also revealed that world countries' non-state actor

relations through public diplomacy Web sites still have more room to improve.

First of all, only 124 countries (64.9 %) of the UN member countries have direct

and clear information accommodating non-state actors on their Web sites.

Moreover, only eight countries place non-state actor related information on the first

page of their Web sites, whereas 100 countries have it on the second page, and 16

countries have it on the third or more page.

World countries' dialogic relationship building efforts with non-state actors

are even worse. Only 101 countries (52.8 %) of the UN member countries provide

one or more dialogic relationship building features, specifically designed to non-

state actors. The histogram of world countries' dialogic relationship building









strategies with non-state actors (see Graph 4-5), which is extremely skewed to the

left, also shows the inadequacy.

The most frequently utilized dialogic relationship building item was "e-mail

address" (59.1 %), followed by "viewer choice" (39 %) and "search engine box"

(27.3 %). However, more active and two-way communication tools, such as

"bulletin board" (5.2 %), "chat room" (1.3 %), and "blog" (0 %), were utilized very

rarely. Considering that non-state actors, who visit public diplomacy Web sites to

seek relevant information and communication, are likely "active" publics,

according to J. Grunig's classification of publics based on the situational theory (J.

Grunig & Hunt, 1984; J. Grunig, 1989), world countries should more care about

non-state actors and should incorporate them into mutually beneficial dialogues.

The analysis and subsequent statistical verification revealed that a country's

economic scale and level of freedom are significant predictors of its level of non-

state actor relations as well. By the same token, political status of a country turned

out to be not significant in explaining its level of non-state actor relations. Again,

bigger economic scale and subsequent drive for economic prosperity makes world

countries more concerned about diverse relationship building and management. In

addition, the more a country admits freedom, which means a more open society,

the more a country is willing to solicit various publics to their policy decision-

making discourse.









Global Issue Management in Public Diplomacy

"Social responsibility" and "corporate citizenship" have become buzzwords in

the corporate sector, due to increasing consensus of mutual benefits and ethical

standards for corporations within society. Likewise, "global responsibility" and

"international citizenship" are important for nation-states to coexist with each other

mutually beneficially and cooperate with each other ethically responsibly.

The research question and hypotheses of this study, regarding global issue

management in Web public diplomacy started from the previously stated rationale.

The analysis revealed that among 154 countries maintaining English-language

based public diplomacy Web sites, only 68 countries (44.2 %) showed their

national care about global issues at hand. In addition, only six countries place

global issue information on the first page of their Web sites, whereas 37 countries

have it on the second page and 25 countries have it on the third or more page.

Consequently, world countries' level of awareness about "global responsibility"

and "international citizenship" is still embryonic.

Also, the statistical test revealed that economic scale is a significant predictor

in explaining a country's level of concern about global issues, whereas political

status and level of freedom do not have statistically significant correlations with

global issue management. Similar to the corporate sector, states with bigger

economic scale tend to more appreciate the importance of global issues, in other

words, "global responsibility," than states with smaller economic scale. On top of

that, states with bigger economic scale have more capacities in terms of spending

and donating their efforts and money to deal with immediate global issues. It is









desirable in that some developed and leading countries strive to make the world a

better place to live and provide humanitarian aid as a part of "global responsibility"

and "international citizenship."

Limitations

This study has importance in that it is the first comprehensive research on

world countries' Web public diplomacy activities with public relations

perspectives. It is also to be hoped that this study will serve as a platform for more

extended body of knowledge of public relations and its continuous contribution to

the field of world politics and public diplomacy in terms of relationship

management. Nonetheless, there are a number of limitations that remain to be

resolved.

First of all, in terms of the dialogic relationship building features counted in

the Web site content analysis, it is somewhat needed to refine and adjust those

features to capture the unique nature of relationships taking place in the realm of

public diplomacy. Even though the intercoder reliability turned out to be desirable,

the very first intention of Taylor, Kent, and White, who created the measurement

items, was focused on activist organizations' Web site utilization. Therefore, it is

possible that the measurement instrument used in this study could not fully

embrace the characteristics of governments-publics relations. To name a few, it

would be instrumental to include a diplomacy glossary item and a recent policy

announcement item on the measurement features related to usefulness of

information to publics.









In addition, political status of world countries should have been segmented

more elaborately, rather than just "democracy/not democracy." Even though it was

hard to find more comprehensive and sophisticated secondary data in terms of

world countries' political status, the result might have been changed, if given more

detailed classification. Perhaps, it would much more meaningful to compare world

countries based on their respective form of government, such as parliamentary

system or presidential system.

Suggestions for Future Research

Based on this study, future research needs to be made to shed more light on

public relations' value and contribution with regard to public diplomacy.

First, considering that public relations basically deals with relationship in

itself, it will be valuable to explore specific relationship measurement scales, which

can be applicable to public diplomacy context, other than trust, commitment,

satisfaction, control mutuality, exchange relationship, and communal relationship,

drawn by Hon and J. Grunig (1999). In particular, studies so far have only focused

on organization-public relationships in a domestic setting. Relationship studies

regarding public diplomacy will extend the scope of public relations research to the

international level as well.

Second, further consideration about national variables in relation to public

diplomacy activities is needed. Even though a country's political status, economic

scale, and level of freedom are recognized as the most representative variables to

compare world countries, there should be more diverse and unique national

variables, for example, Hofstede's (1980) five dimensions of societal culture,









including power distance, collectivism, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty

avoidance, and long-term orientation, that influence countries' public diplomacy

practices. Moreover, it can more sophisticatedly visualize the antecedents of the

excellence in public diplomacy.

Third, a comparative analysis of Web public diplomacy by region will be

useful. This kind of study will conceptualize the actual public diplomacy situations

of each region of the world and can present desirable ways for advancement to

each regional country.

Fourth, considering the increasing importance of non-state actor relations in

public diplomacy, elaborate segmentation of non-state actors and exploration of

different relationship building processes for each non-state actor are necessary. In

line with the situational theory of public relations, this kind of study will shed light

on understanding characteristics of various publics involved in public diplomacy

practices.

Last but not least, a content analysis specifically designed for global issue

management of world countries is worth being taken into account. It will

conceptualize world countries' awareness and endeavor to solve mutual problems

and international cooperation and relationship building processes in terms of global

crisis management.














APPENDIX A
CODING SHEET FOR THE CONTENT ANALYSIS


Coder:

Name of the country:



1. A country's level of governmental Web sites utilization

1-1. Presence of governmental Web sites (Check all that apply)

1-1-1. Check the presence or absence of governmental Web sites.

1-1-1-1. Presence of governmental Web sites: (1) Presence (2) Absence

1-1-1-2. Existing governmental Web sites (Check all items applicable to the

country)

(1) Foreign ministry (2) Foreign embassy (3) President

1-1-1-3. Governmental Web site that is analyzed

(1) Foreign ministry (2) Foreign embassy (3) President

1-1-2. Check the presence or absence of English-language based governmental Web sites.

1-1-2-1. English-based governmental Web sites: (1) Presence (2) Absence



2. Dialogic relationship building

2-1. Ease of interface (check all that apply)

2-1-1. Check the presence or absence of ease of interface features.

2-1-1-1. Site map: (1) Presence _(2) Absence









2-1-1-2. Major links to rest of the site: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-1-1-3. Search engine box: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-1-1-4. Low reliance on graphics: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-2. Usefulness of information to publics (check all that apply)

2-2-1. Check the presence or absence of usefulness of information features.

2-2-1-1. Press releases: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-2-1-2. Speeches: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-2-1-3. Downloadable graphics: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-2-1-4. Audio/Visual capacity: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-2-1-5. Links to political leaders: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-3. Conservation of visitors (check all that apply)

2-3-1. Check the presence or absence of conservation of visitors features.

2-3-1-1. Important info available on 1st page: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-3-1-2. Short loading time (less than 4 seconds): (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-3-1-3. Posting of last updated time and date: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-4. Return visits (check all that apply)

2-4-1. Check the presence or absence of return visits features.

2-4-1-1. Explicit statement invites user to return: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-4-1-2. News forum (regularly scheduled): (1) Presence _(2) Absence

2-4-1-3. FAQ's or Q & A's: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-4-1-4. Bookmark now: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-4-1-5. Links to other Web sites: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-4-1-6. Calendar of events: (1) Presence _(2) Absence









2-4-1-7. Downloadable information: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-4-1-8. Things that can be requested by mail or e-mail: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-4-1-9. Posting news stories within 15 days: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-5. Dialogic loop (check all that apply)

2-5-1. Check the presence or absence of dialogic loop features.

2-5-1-1. Opportunity for user-response: (1) Presence _(2) Absence

2-5-1-2. Opportunity to vote on issues: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-5-1-3. Survey to voice opinion on issues: (1) Presence (2) Absence

2-5-1-4. Offers regular information through e-mail: (1) Presence (2) Absence



3. Non-state actor relations

3-1. Check the level of prominence regarding non-state actor relations.

(1) 1st layer (2) 2nd layer (3) 3rd layer or more (4) None

3-2. Interactive communication features in the non-state actor-related pages (Check

all that apply)

3-2-1. Check the presence or absence of interactive communication features.

3-2-1-1. Search engine box: (1) Presence (2) Absence

3-2-1-2. Viewer choice: (1) Presence _(2) Absence

3-2-1-3. E-mail address: (1) Presence (2) Absence

3-2-1-4. Bulletin board: (1) Presence _(2) Absence

3-2-1-5. Chat room: (1) Presence (2) Absence

3-2-1-6. Blog: (1) Presence (2) Absence

3-2-1-7. Other: (1) Presence (2) Absence






64




4. Awareness level of global issues

4-1. Check the level of prominence regarding global issue information.

(1) 1st layer (2) 2nd layer (3) 3rd layer or more (4) None

4-2. Awareness level of global issues

4-2-1. Check the presence or absence of global issue features (Check all that apply)

4-2-1-1. Global issue information: (1) Presence (2) Absence














APPENDIX B
CODE BOOK FOR THE CONTENT ANALYSIS


Instruction: Based on the content of each governmental Web site, check the items

that are listed on the coding sheet. Also, if you have any questions in relation to the

coding, feel free to ask the researcher.



Coder: Your full name

Name of the country: The official name of a country, which is the member of the UN



1. A country's level of governmental Web sites utilization

1-1. Presence of governmental Web sites

In this study, the governmental Web site for public diplomacy includes only three

types of a Web site; a foreign ministry Web site, a foreign embassy Web site, and a

presidential Web site. A foreign ministry Web site should be given the foremost

priority of the content analysis of a country, followed by a foreign embassy Web

site and a Presidential Web site. For example, if a country has both a foreign

ministry Web site and a foreign embassy Web site, only a foreign ministry Web

site should be the unit of analysis. Likewise, if a country has a foreign embassy

Web site and a presidential Web site without any official foreign ministry Web site,

a foreign embassy Web site should be solely analyzed. If a country has multiple

foreign Embassy Web sites, please contact the researcher.









1-1-1. Presence or absence of governmental Web sites

Go to http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/ and find links to the governmental Web sites

of each country. If a country has no link relevant to the three categories of

governmental Web sites (foreign ministry, foreign embassy, and presidential) in the

data base, go to Google (www.google.com) and search relevant governmental Web

sites again. If you still cannot find any governmental Web sites, then you can check

the "absence" blank. Check a country's all governmental Web sites available in the

data base, and check only one Web site that you analyze.

1-1-2. Presence or absence of English-language based governmental Web sites

Visit governmental Web sites of a country and find if an English-language version

is available. You can change your unit of analysis based on the fact whether a Web

site utilizes English-language or not. For instance, let's say a country has all three

governmental Web sites. Basically, you have to only analyze the foreign ministry

Web site of a country, ignoring other two. However, if the foreign ministry Web

site does not provide English-language version but a foreign Embassy Web site

does, you have to change your analysis unit to a foreign Embassy Web site. If a

country does not provide English-language based governmental Web sites at all

level, you can terminate the analysis and leave other questions unfinished.



2. Dialogic relationship building

2-1. Ease of interface

Check the presence or absence of items that are listed on a coding sheet. Items

should be investigated at all levels of a Web site. In terms of low reliance of









graphics, you can conclude a Web site does not rely on graphics, if the Web pages

of a site are generally comprised of less than 50% of graphics.

2-2. Usefulness of information to publics

Check the presence or absence of the items that are listed on a coding sheet. Refer

to the following description of each item.

Feature item Description
Press releases News articles or information for the media
Speeches Transcripts of important public speeches of the institution
Downloadable graphics Downloadable information, either graphics or texts
Audio/Visual capacity Availability of audio or video information
.s to p l l s Ways to contact with officials
Links to political leaders .
(____________ (e-mail, mail, telephone, etc.)

2-3. Conservation of visitors

Check the presence or absence of the items that are listed on a coding sheet. Refer

to the following description of each item.

Feature item Description
it Information concerning public diplomacy
Important info available of 1st page policies
policies
Less than 4 seconds to fully show the content
Short loading time of a Web site
of a Web site
Posting of last updated time and date Specific sign of newly updated time and date

2-4. Return visits

Check the presence or absence of the items that are listed on a coding sheet. Refer

to the following description of each item.










Feature item Description

Explicit statement invites user to Presence of re-invitation words on the Web
return page
News forum Regularly scheduled Web-based news forum
FAQ's or Q & A's Means to answer publics' requests or questions
Means to register the Web site address to a
Bookmark now
person's Internet bookmark list.
Link systems to navigate other related Web
Links to other Web sites
sites
Calendar of events Notice of a institution's activities to publics
.Downlod inorInformation regarding public diplomacy
Downloadable information .pl
policies
Things that can be requested by Means for publics to request something to the
mail or e-mail institution
Posting new stories within 15 Updated news stories regarding the institution
days within 15 days

2-5. Dialogic loop

Check the presence or absence of the items that are listed on a coding sheet. Refer

to the following description of each item.

Feature item Description
Means for publics to send messages to the
Opportunity for user-response institution
institution
Systems for concerned publics to vote on
Opportunity to vote on issues certain controversial foreign policy issues
Web surveys for concerned publics to voice
Surveys to voice opinion on issues
their opinions about certain foreign policies
Offers regular information through Asking publics if they want regular e-mail
e-mail notification service regarding foreign policies


3. Non-state actor relations

In this study, non-state actors include all kinds of organization except state

governments. Therefore, non-state actors in this study can be NGOs, private

organizations, corporations, individuals, and so forth. An organization, which is









governed or funded by a state even partially, cannot fall into the category of non-

state actors here.

3-1. Level of prominence regarding non-state actor relations

Find non-state actors-related items less than two "clicks" from the main page. If

you find non-state actors-related information on the main page, check 1st layer. If

you find non-state actors-related information after one "click" from the main page,

check 2nd layer. If you find non-state actors-related information after two "clicks"

from the main page, check 3rd layer or more. If you cannot find any non-state

actors-related information even after two "clicks" from the main page, check

"none."

3-2. Presence or absence of interactive communication features

Check the presence or absence of the items that are listed on a coding sheet. Refer

to the following description of each item.

Feature item Description
Search engine box Search tools for the ease of information seeking
.V r c e Consideration of publics' diversified needs
Viewer choice .
(e.g., language choice)
E-mail address One or more hot links to an e-mail address
Bulletin board Communication tool with publics in an asynchronous
manner
Chat room Communication tool with publics in a synchronous manner
Blog Communication tool with publics















LIST OF REFERENCES


Anzinger, G. (2002, June 26). Governments on the WWW. Retrieved October 24, 2005,
from http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/

Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations
Review, 23(2), 177-186.

Berger, B. K. (2001). Private issues and public policy: Locating the corporate agenda in
agenda-setting theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(2), 91-126.

Brown, S. J., & Studemeister, M. S. (2003). Virtual diplomacy. In D. H. Johnston (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of international media and communications (pp. 585-594). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.

Curtin, P. A., & Gaither, T. K. (2004). International agenda-building in cyberspace: A
study of Middle East government English-language websites. Public Relations
Review, 30, 25-36.

Fisher, J. (2003). Local and global: International governance and civil society. Journal of
International Affairs, 57(1), 19-39.

Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2004). U.S. public diplomacy: Telling America's story. Vital Speeches
of the Day, 70(13), 412-416.

Freedom House (2005). Freedom in the world 2006. Retrieved February 4, 2006, from
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15&year=2005

Global Reach. (2004). Global Internet Statistics. Retrieved October 24, 2005, from
http://global-reach.biz/globstats/index.php3

Gower, K. K. (2005). The fear of public relations in foreign affairs: an examination of the
1963 Fulbright Hearings into foreign agents. Public Relations Review, 31, 37-46.

Grieg, J. M. (2002). The end of geography? Globalization, communications, and culture
in the international system. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46(2), 225-243.

Grunig, J. E. (1989). Sierra Club study shows who becomes activists. Public Relations
Review, 15(3), 3-24.









Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managingpublic relations. New York, NY: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.

Heath, R. L. (2001). A rhetorical enactment rationale for public relations: The good
organization communicating well. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook ofpublic relations
(pp. 31-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hertz, J. H. (1981). Political realism revisited. International Studies Quarterly, 25(2),
182-197.

Hiebert, R. E. (2005). Commentary: Challenges for Arab and American public relations
and public diplomacy in a global age. Public Relations Review, 31, 317-322.

Hoffmann, S. (2002). Clash of globalizations. Foreign Affairs, 81(4), 104-115.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysisfor the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.

Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelinesfor measuring relationships in public
relations. Retrieved January 20, 2006, from
http://www.instituteforpr.org/pdf/1999_guidemeasurerelationships.pdf

Jacobson, T. L., & Jang, W. Y. (2003). Mediated war, peace, and global civil society. In
B. Mody (Ed.), International and development communication (pp. 53-68). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jaworski, S. P., & Fosher, D. (2003). National brand identity & its effect on corporate
brands: The nation brand effect (NBE). The Multinational Business Review, 11(2),
99-113.

Johnson, M. A. (2005). Five decades of Mexican public relations in the United States:
From propaganda to strategic counsel. Public Relations Review, 31, 11-20.

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World
Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24(3), 321-334.

Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2000). Globalization: What's new? What's not? (And so
what?). Foreign Policy, 118, 104-119.

Kunczik, M. (2003). Transnational public relations by foreign governments. In K.
Sriramesh & D. Vercic (Ed.), The globalpublic relations handbook (pp. 399-424).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.









Lagon, M. P. (2003). Visions of globalization: Pretexts for prefabricated prescriptions-
and some antidotes. WorldAffairs, 165(3), 142-148.

Lasswell, H. D. (1927). Propaganda technique in the World War. London: Kegan, Paul.

Lee, M. (2005). When government used publicity against itself: Toledo's Commission of
Publicity and Efficiency, 1916-1975. Public Relations Review, 31, 55-61.

Leonard, M. (2002). Diplomacy by other means. Foreign Policy, 132, 48-56.

L'Etang, J. (1996). Public relations as diplomacy. In J. L'Etang & M. Pieczka (Ed.),
Critical perspective inpublic relations (pp. 14-34). London: International Thompson
Business Press

Malek, A. (2003). Foreign policy and the media. In D. H. Johnston (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
international media and communications (pp. 23-29). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.

Manheim, J. B., & Albritton, R. B. (1984). Changing national images: International
public relations and media agenda setting. The American Political Science Review,
78(3), 641-657.

Matthew, R. A. (2002). Environment, population, and conflict: New modalities of threat
and vulnerability in South Asia. Journal ofInternational Affairs, 56(1), 235-254.

Maynard, M., & Tian, Y. (2004). Between global and local: Content analysis of the
Chinese Web Sites of the 100 top global brands. Public Relations Review, 30, 285-
291.

McMillan, S. J. (2000). The microscope and the moving target: The challenge of
applying content analysis to the World Wide Web. Journalism andMass
Communication Quarterly, 77(1), 80-98.

Molleda, J. C., & Quinn, C. (2004). Cross-national conflict shifting: A global public
relations dynamic. Public Relations Review, 30, 1-9.

Molleda, J. C., Connolly-Ahern, C., & Quinn, C. (2005). Cross-national conflict shifting:
expanding a theory of global public relations management through quantitative
content analysis. Journalism Studies, 6(1), 87-102.

Nation Master. (2006). Government Status. Retrieved February 5, 2006, from
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/gov_sta&bprintable=1

Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy, 80, 153-171.


Nye, J. S. (2002). The dependent colossus. Foreign Policy, 129, 74-76.









Nye, J. S., & Owens, W. A. (1996). America's information edge. Foreign Affairs, 75(2),
20-36.

O'Connell, M. E. (2005). Enhancing the status of non-state actors through a global war
on terror?. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 43(2), 435-458.

Peterson, P. G. (2002, September/October). Public diplomacy and the war on terrorism.
Retrieved October 12, 2005, from
http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&requesttimeout=500&folder=7&p
aper=539

Ronfeldt, D., & Arquilla, J. (1999, February 25). What if there is a revolution in
diplomatic affairs?. Retrieved September 27, 2005, from
http://www.usip.org/virtualdiplomacy/publications/reports/ronarqlSA99.html

Ross, C. (2002). Public diplomacy comes of age. The Washington Quarterly, 25(2), 75-
83.

Saxer, U. (1993). Public relations and symbolic politics. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 5(2), 127-151.

Scholte, J. (1997). Global capitalism and the state. International Affairs, 73, 427-452.

Signitzer, B. H., & Coombs, T. (1992). Public relations and public diplomacy:
Conceptual convergence. Public Relations Review, 18, 137-147.

Solomon, R. H. (2000, March). The Internet and the diffusion of diplomacy. Retrieved
September 30, 2005, from http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0300/ijpe/pj51solo.htm

Spitzer, C. (2003, October 5). New policy: Replace spin with more straight talk. Sunday
Star, p. 9A.

Sriramesh, K., & Vercic, D. (2003). A theoretical framework for global public relations
research and practice. In K. Sriramesh & D. Vercic (Ed.), The globalpublic relations
handbook (pp. 1-19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stevenson, R. L. (1994). Global communication in the 21t century. New York, NY:
Longman.

Taylor, M. (2000). Toward a public relations approach to nation building. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 12(2), 179-210.

Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the
Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 27, 263-284.









Telhami, S. (2002). Public opinion could flare out of control in Arab nations. San Jose,
CA: Mercury.

Thomson, K. W. (1977). Cultural exchange and global social change. Journal of
International Affairs, 31(2), 243-257.

Viotti, P. R., & Kauppi, M. V. (2001). International relations and worldpolitics:
Security, economy, identity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Von Eschen, P. M. (2005). Enduring public diplomacy. American Quarterly, 57(2), 335-
343.

Wakefield, R. I. (2001). Effective public relations in the multinational organization. In R.
L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook ofpublic relations (pp. 639-647). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2003). Mass media research: An introduction.
Belmont, CA: Wadworth/Thomson Learning.

World Bank (2005, July 15). Total GDP 2004. Retrieved February 4, 2006, from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf

Yeon, H. M. (2005). Interactive communication features on nonprofit organizations' web
pages for the practice of excellence in public relations. Unpublished master thesis,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Zaharna, R. S., & Villalobos, J. C. (2000). A public relations tour of Embassy Row: The
Latin diplomatic experience. Public Relations Quarterly, 45(4), 33-37.

Zhang, J., & Benoit, W. L. (2004). Message strategies of Saudi Arabia's image
restoration campaign after 9/11. Public Relations Review, 30, 161-167.

Zhang, J., & Cameron, G. T. (2003). China's agenda building and image polishing in the
US: Assessing an international public relations campaign. Public Relations Review,
29, 13-28.

Zhang, J., Qiu, Q., & Cameron, G. T. (2004). A contingency approach to the Sino-U.S.
conflict resolution. Public Relations Review, 30, 391-399.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

In 2004, Hyung Min Lee earned double BA degrees in mass communication and

public administration from Han-Yang University, Seoul. He will continue his PhD study

at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities after graduation.