CC BY
514THE COUNTRY IMAGE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: 21st CENTURY ENVIRONMENT
Lianna Ayvazyan'
This article is primarily based on the analysis of the image projected by other actors, using the image of Armenia in the so-called “quality” American press as an example, since the influence of these media on making important political decisions is well known. These are The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal (all materials published in 1991-2009) [1]. Unfortunately, so far it is difficult to discuss the opposite process (i.e. the image that we make). On the other hand, we believe this analysis and the provided examples might be more useful in making own image than a mere restatement of the known PR methods. Finally, although the examples provided are from printed media, our analysis is based on a much vaster material concerning images of other countries, global, regional and domestic developments, including official reports, academic and expert studies, comparison of publications, as well as interviews with diplomats, experts and journalists in Washington, DC (June 1998) and Yerevan.
The image building as the art of targeted perception management, or as it is now commonly referred to as public diplomacy, has accompanied humankind from the very first steps of its evolution [2].
However, the notion of “image” has become a subject for studies only in the first half of the 20th century, when the aftermaths of both World Wars uncovered the horrendous cost to be paid for creating, promoting and spreading an “image of enemy.” Diplomacy is no longer a “sport of kings”, as it used to be in the 19th century [3, p. 59]. Since 1945, the development of the mass media, especially television, and later on also of the other new technologies, has changed the picture international relations and the way they are presented by mass media.
In Global Communications, International Affairs and the Media Since 1945, Philip Taylor has emphasized the role of communication in the modern world in the
‘ PR officer for CANDLE
36
<21st CENTURY», № 1 (7), 2010
L.Ayvazyan
spirit Alvin Toffler, and at the same time, in addition to the diplomatic, economic and military dimensions in inter-state affairs he has identified a fourth one, which he termed as psychological or informational dimension: “This dimension involves the gathering and communication of information, ideas, perceptions and messages. Naturally this also takes place within the other dimensions, but it has become a distinctive aspect of inter-state relations in its own right... all communication involves the active transmission and reception of something. That something is invariably a signal or message containing information that can inform, instruct, persuade, educate, propagandize, incite or entertain. The information can take the form of words or sounds or images, or a combination of these, now also presented in other forms such as digital data” [3, p. 21].
Concepts of media diplomacy, CNN diplomacy, TV diplomacy are being articulated. It seems that it was quite recently when the notions of “public/popular diplomacy” and “soft power” were introduced and included in the foreign policy of many countries, while new ones are emerging at an incredible pace, for which no Armenian equivalents have been devised yet, such as: net diplomacy, niche diplo-macy1, open-source public diplomacy (see Fisher Ali, Music for the Jilted Generation: Open-Source Public Diplomacy for the latter), etc.
The idea of diplomacy as inter-state relations only, is as outdated as, say, parchment or quill for writing. The informational revolution has changed the global society. Presently no one holds the monopoly for information. The paradigm of diplomacy as government-to-government interactions is shifting to one of people-to-people format [4]. Predictions are already made about the latter’s huge potential for transformation of other societies.
The whole international system is changing, as well; new theories arise, the authors of which attempt not only to explain the new realities, but also to forecast the tectonic shifts in international affairs, forewarn about the threats they impose and point out the opportunities they render. In the post-modern period the media, emotions of masses, interests of distinct groups (including transnational) or regions are brought into action. The role of existing context, public sentiments and individuals is much greater than the textbooks suggest. Foreign policy becomes an extension of the domestic one [5].
In these conditions of information explosion, globalization, development of international communication and increased role of the public opinion in international relations, the significance of the national and country images is undisputable.
1 Diplomacy aimed at achieving a specific position, place for a country, using any favorable conditions for that.
37
L.Ayvazyan
<21st CENTURY», № 1 (7), 2010
New subjects, such as businesses, international organizations, NGOs, and individual communicators get involved in the process in addition to the traditional ones; the nation states. Many authors argue that the informational revolution has changed the essence and traits of such a fundamental factor as the Power is. According to M. Kunczik (Images of Nations and International Public Relations), today half of a nation’s power comes from image building, and he warns that in media diplomacy era statecraft may become a hostage of stagecraft [6].
Given the fundamental changes in international politics, the geopolitical processes in the region and the Armenian-Turkish initiatives, currently one may talk about the image-bound regional geopolitics.
Everything indicates that processes of targeted perception management, agenda setting, fabrication of credibility and new image creation have commenced here, wherein a multitude of actors are involved, objectives are set (long- and shortterm), and various means are used (open and closed). Perhaps, we are dealing with something that the Americans call Strategic Communication. For example, they believe that successful strategic communication and public diplomacy shall target both the mass audience and specific groups, who affect the decisions and opinions to the extent of their experience, position and leadership capabilities (e.g. political and business leaders, the military, the clergy, renowned journalists, representatives of the science and education community, women’s organizations, etc.).
Public diplomacy (including cultural, sports, museum and media diplomacies) are primarily used for long-term objectives and open means. The visual, and more importantly the real-time event dimensions supplement verbal communications in order to intensify the effect. The next characteristic concerns the audience: it expands and turns from a local to the global one (not only who says what, when and how is important, but also to whom it is targeted). Legitimacy, Credibility, Reputation, Leadership, Individuals, Popular sentiments, Fears and Expectations, Symbols, Identity and even the very History become indispensable means in this process.
The new trends in Armenian-Turkish relations showed that “we are not ready to protect our society” and that the statements of foreign statesmen have a stronger influence on us (Vigen Sargsyan, “Haylur” Sunday edition).
Different images clash in the region, and:
1. These images are not only created in the region, and actually, not so much in
the region.
2. Various actors with different objectives are involved in the process.
38
<21st CENTURY», № 1 (7), 2010
L.Ayvazyan
3. The foreign policy and country image often are the extension of the domestic
policy.
4. A struggle for identity affirmation or denial takes place.
5. The image or its construction are often portrayed as politics.
An erroneous analysis may lead to confusion, hinder achievement of the shortterm objectives, and most dangerously, it may become an instrument in long-term ploys of other interested actors. The lack of understanding of the perception management essence and complexity may result in undesirable change of attitudes and beliefs not only among ordinary people, but also at the leadership level, which means some crucial decisions may become irreversible.
Perception management is defined as actions to convey or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences (to influence their emotions and objective reasoning), as well as to intelligence systems and leaders at all levels in order to influence official assessments, ultimately resulting in behaviors and formal actions favorable to the originator's objectives. In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, cover and deception, and psychological operations. Moreover, it is not unconceivable that we deal with or will have to deal with cognitive viruses. Some experts, including Thomas Rona who is credited with coining the modern term of information warfare, have extended the idea of memes to the system of information warfare (though others claim that there is no sufficient scientific evidence for that). T. Rona has described the idea of “societal immunodeficiency virus” or SIV, against which unwarned populations would have no effective defenses. Meme is a unit of information, like an idea or a skill, that transfers from one mind to another through verbal or repetitive actions. G. Stein and R. Szafranski call them the basic unit of cultural imitation, monads or building blocks of culture, thinking and behavior, the means by which a society reproduces itself [7].
In these conditions, there is an urgent need for interpreting information, sorting out valuable signals and image from noise and reality, respectively. We witness what Joseph Nye, one of the leading professors at Harvard University credited with coining the term “soft power”, called a “paradox of plenty”. Today, Attention rather than Information becomes the scarce resource, and those who can distinguish valuable signals from noise gain power. J. Nye states that in the conditions of increasing information flows, political struggles occur over the creation and destruction of Credibility. He contends that governments compete for
39
L.Ayvazyan
<21st CENTURY», № 1 (7), 2010
credibility not only with other governments, but also with mass media, corporations, NGOs, intergovernmental organizations, and networks of scientific communities. According to Nye, politics becomes more theatrical and aimed at global audiences, and in an information age, it is often the side which has the better story that wins [8].
It has to be added that credibility, own agenda setting, as well as creating meanings (rather than eliminating them), respecting symbols (rather than destroying or mocking them) would ensure the minimally required integral mix to protect the social consciousness. It is also a critical process in terms of a country’s self-image and international image, and its absence, or even worse, handing it over to others is extremely detrimental. There are examples of this in not so distant past; say, the collapse of the country a part of which we used to be. In G. Pocheptsev’s words, “International image is, above all, a system of links and supporting frameworks and rules. The defeat of USSR in the Cold War was essentially the loss of its image, and hence, the failure of its system of links [9, p. 414].
In this backdrop, the image as an important non-tangible factor for a nation state’s power turns out to be even more sought after among other factors, and in the wider context of perceptions management, it grows to be a strategic resource. Furthermore, if important international actors do not endorse the policies of a nation state, then they will work against the political line of that nation using all available levers.
In this regard the President Serge Sargsyan’s speech at the assembly of the Republican Party of Armenia is quite characteristic, where he stressed the following: “We develop our activities as a 21st century party. Virtually no issues remain that are of interest solely for us. All serious issues that we are concerned about fall in the context of the global interests. It is necessary to be well aware about the substance of this context. An artist’s brushstroke can be accurate only in the context of the picture as a whole.”
Therefore, in the 21st century it is necessary to consider the image of countries in international relations analysis. The positive international image for Armenia has to be formed with consideration of the 21st century’s new realities geopolitical changes in the world and the region, and most importantly, the national interests. The strategy and tactics for image building, management and adjustment must correspond to the state’s explicit or tacit short-, medium- and long-term objectives.
40
<21st CENTURY», № 1 (7), 2010
L.Ayvazyan
Yet, what is a country's image?
Is it possible to manage or adjust it?
The problem of the country image has been elaborated rather fundamentally, particularly in foreign literature. However, the existing approaches differ significantly. Image is contemplated in different contexts: international PR, strategic communication and public diplomacy, psychology, public opinion, media, branding, marketing and so forth. There are questions posed with no unequivocal answers readily available. Still, many nations invest heavily in their programs for image and reputation. Image making, as well as PR technologies are based on studies and results in social and political psychology, including social cognition, influence psychology, advertising, political and managerial psychology.
The interest of political scientists and experts of international studies in issue of the image arose in 1960-70s. The first publication that analyzed the impact of image on international relations was K. Boulding’s The Image (1962). In exposing the national image - international system interrelations, Boulding defined the term “image” as cognitive, affective and evaluative structure [10, p. 423].
When discussing the images existing in the international arena, two things have to be noted. First, two different notions - “image” and “appearance” (in Russian- “obraz”) have to be identified, and second, the concepts of “country image”, “ethnic/national image”, “self-image”, “media-image” and others have to be differentiated.
In ordinary speech, political and scientific literature alike, the concept of “image” is used exclusively in context of premeditated influence and targeted shaping, as duly noted by A. Bodalev and L. Laptev. Also, E.B.Pereligina states that “... image is an appearance (“obraz”) created, i.e. the appearance formed as a result of certain actions, work.” E.N.Bogdanova and V.G.Zazikin provide even a clearer definition: “... image is nothing but a deliberately built psychological appearance that is created with some very specific objectives.” The same authors continue: “Worded differently, an object’s appearance might exist “naturally”, whereas the concept of “image” comes up when there is a need for adjusting that appearance in collective or individual minds” [11, p. 36-37].
Another scholar, E.Galumov, underscores the active, functional quintessence of the image, too, and draws several important conclusions [12],:
First, image is a manageable category that can be willingly aligned, built and transformed.
41
L.Ayvazyan
<21st CENTURY», № 1 (7), 2010
Second, a country’s image has a price and serves a tool for resolving competitive problems.
Thud, image is not just an informational, but also a combative informational concept.
As M. Kunczik maintains: “The image is something created and cultivated by its possessor, that is, something that can be actively influenced by PR activities. By contrast, prejudices and/or stereotypes are created by the environment and are ascribed” [6, p. 39]. At the same time, some social psychologists have concluded that regardless of the efforts applied, the people’s mentality and views are very resistant to sudden pressures from environment, and that almost nothing can change any nation’s image in the eyes of the 40% of population even in 20-30 years.
It is also worth mentioning the observations of Robert Jervis [13, p. 6]:
• Nation states are capable of influencing other nation states by simply changing their image, without modifying the policies they conduct.
• The image may become a major factor in easier attainment of a nation’s goals in international relations.
• Nations may pay an extremely high cost for having an undesirable image.
• Thus, to summarize the previously mentioned concepts:
• The notion of “image” may be applied exclusively in the meaning of planned influence and targeted building.
• The people’s perceptions and views about others are extremely resistant to sudden pressures from environment.
• The “image” is consisted of cognitive, affective and evaluative integral parts.
Regarding the last bullet item above it has to be noted that different scholars who study the role of image in international relations underscore the significance of such notions as “self-image”, “media-image”, “foreign policy image”, “geopolitical image”, “leader image”, “territory image”, etc. However, these can be classified as country’s sub-images. The Western researchers of these issues have mainly followed several distinct paths of study. We shall single out three of those, whereby the image is presented as:
• “signals” that international actors emit to each other, i.e. coded information about one’s intentions, interests and so forth (O. Holsti, R. Jervis);
• a “filter” in the system of beliefs of the foreign policy decision-makers (K. Shimko, M. Cottam);
42
<21st CENTURY», № 1 (7), 2010
L.Ayvazyan
• a factor of national identity, particularly when forming a national image through political discourse (H. Larsen).
It has to be mentioned that in addition to this very image-focused approach, a country’s image is also subject to marketing (Place Marketing) and branding (CompetitiveIdentity) studies1. However, it is out of the scope of our interest here. The functions of image outlined in literature are mainly as follows:
• identification;
• idealization;
• contrasting.
Nonetheless, what is the role of the country image and what factor can it represent in international relations? What would be the outcomes of efficiently handling the country’s image? Though the article format does not enable to answers all the questions in detail, yet we shall try to provide some answers.
To summarize the role of a country’s image, it has to be emphasized that today it may act as:
• a factor/instrument in inter-state affairs;
• a part of strategic power;
• identity validation, rejection or creation;
• an alternative way of interaction;
• a resource that works through public opinion, which in its turn represents another resource;
• an inexpensive means to reach one's objectives;
• an ideological concept;
• exertion of Soft/Smart power;
• an extension of domestic politics;
• a means to address issues of country attractiveness and competitiveness;
• a part of Aid Diplomacy, Diplomacy of Deeds.
Studying the image of CIS countries in international mass media, one may observe that it:
• includes parameters of desirable image (democracy, human rights, stability, etc.);
• presents cause and effect relationship (in commenting on events);
1 See Peter van Ham, The Rise of the Brand State: The Postmodern Politics of Image and Reputation, and Simon Anholt, Countries Must Earn Better Images through Smart Policy.
43
L.Ayvazyan
<21st CENTURY», № 1 (7), 2010
• ascribes responsibility;
• provides certain assessments.
There are various ways of image building in these media. Some of them are:
• news management,
• agenda setting,
• framing,
• naming,
• packaging,
• discourse;
• events management,
• pseudo-events,
• manipulation;
• visibility: low or high profile;
• saliency;
• spreading ideas.
In this regard, it is worth presenting the story of an interview, which might be quite instructive in respect to the analysis of the aforementioned mass media image making. In the author’s interview with Paul Goble (one of the interviews with the diplomatic and media community representatives in Washington, DC, in 1998, was not intended for publication) regarding Armenia’s image, when asked about the intent of his idea on Meghri corridor, he replied that it was supposed to get us, the Armenians, used to the idea of compromise, whereas otherwise he believed Karabakh is Armenian land. It is interesting how Goble called this process. In his words, it had to be a Great Deal/Great Bargain. Since he had put this very idea into circulation in mass media, let us analyze it based on the findings of this article and above-mentioned list of items.
First, it appears that above all, we are dealing with the memetic or cognitive virus (in the form of the compromise idea) mentioned earlier. Second, the naming of the supposed process is present (in this case, Great Deal/Great Bargain). Third, how it is presented or packaged. Fourth, how the news management is attempted. Lastly, how one initiates agenda settingand discourse, simultaneously aiming and perception management, and so on. All of this may significantly affect the formulation, pursuit, and finally, adoption of crucial decisions for the country. If one recalls the outcomes of Goble’s idea over the last 15 and more years (as far as making or not
44
<21st CENTURY», № 1 (7), 2010
L.Ayvazyan
making concessions is concerned), then another peculiarity of the image is evident; the managed images, inter alia, shape the reality.
The example of coverage of Armenia in so-called Quality (Elite or Prestige) press in 1991-2009 may once again confirm that that media-image is a critical factor in international, and particularly, inter-state relations (though this article is not aimed at detailing the image of the Republic of Armenia in American press, which is a different subject matter). Based on the study of all materials about Armenia published in these years in The Washington Post, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, one may conclude as well, that the country’s image is an important factor not only in inter-state affairs, but also in the area of global politics. The media-image of a country may possibly be, become or mean the following:
• signal,
• threat,
• warning,
• probing,
• assessment,
• encouragement,
• agenda setting,
• ignoring,
• discrediting,
• management of internal processes, etc.
Several other circumstances have to be taken into consideration when discussing the country’s image. Fust, image of the country is built by various actors: nation states, international organizations, corporations, interest groups, think-tanks, private brokers, individuals, mass media, academia, culture personalities, Diaspora (parties, organizations, community), as well as intelligence agencies and so forth. Second, in order to analyze the media-image of a nation, to adjust or make the new image, it is imperative to know the decision-making path in the given country. Third, as our studies indicate, the media-image of a small country like Armenia is not only and not so much a product of journalism, but rather a factor of international relations. Fourth, it can be a part or a component of propaganda, lobbying, PR (including international PR), public diplomacy (cultural, media, sports, museum and other diplomacies), branding, psychological and informational warfare, as well as intervention by intelligence agencies1.
1 In particular, about latter see Boyd-Barret, Miller, The New York Times, and the Propaganda Model.
45
L.Ayvazyan
<21st CENTURY», № 1 (7), 2010
I suggest to expound the country/national image as follows:
• core (identity/essence)
• layers or sub-images
• shell (current situation, topics, events).
A few other considerations are important to the analysis of image and foreign policy foresights. Our studies of Armenia’s image indicate that for image assessment and political forecasting it is critical to pay attention to the presence of the following variables. First, whether the image is cohesive or split (an example of a split image came up in the previously mentioned interview with Paul Goble, who described Armenia as a country with a noble past, troubled present). Second, which attributes or elements of the image remain unchanged and which ones do vary? For instance, the Armenian Genocide has always been mentioned in all publications regardless of the subject covered (until recently the American Quality Press has been refusing the term Genocide). It is obvious that such a constant presence had been an omen of becoming an international politics factor at some point, which we eventually witnessed in recent developments. Next, attention has to be paid whether there is an attempt to change the core (identity/essence) of the image, or the changes merely affect the sub-images (e.g. the leadership) or are they simply touch the shell (e.g. are event-related)? Finely, another crucial thought; in addition to publications about the issue and changes in the country’s visibility (i.e. number and volume of articles, editorials, series of pictures and other materials about the country), whether or not something that could be called parallel support is present, namely:
• articles and other reports on the country and its people in the sports, cultural and similar pages of the same newspaper,
• publication of international and other organizations’ reports, announcements, telephone conversations of country leaders, etc.,
• publication of the results of various public opinion surveys,
• public diplomacy activity (cultural, sporting, exhibition-related events and episodes, celebrity diplomacy).
It is important to consider Western or local country’s journalism standardsand news values in assessing a country image in mass media. However, the experience suggests that in international journalism the national interests raise above everything, including objectivity and impartiality. Also important are the given media’s ownership, class (Quality press, etc.), the page where material is published, priming
46
<21st CENTURY», № 1 (7), 2010
L.Ayvazyan
(in TV), genre, volume, name, references, sources, verbal means, authors, pictures, charts, maps and a few other things.
As mentioned previously, there is a price to pay for the country’s image in international arena and its consequences, whether positive or negative. In summary, some of them are:
• Credibility, Prestige, Reputation;
• making wrong/incorrect decisions;
• isolation, downturn of investments;
• resolutions detrimental to Armenia and Armenians, adopted in various international organizations;
• interference with/management of internal processes of the country;
• self-esteem and self-image shifting towards the negative end;
• Societal Immunodeficiency;
• transformation of the national identity and values (in the long-term perspective), etc.
Coming back to the peculiarities of the small nations’ image, we shall now consider the open flow of information in the modern world. Based on the bullet points above, one may contend that since it is often extremely difficult for small nation states (among other things, due to the lack of funds) to make a continually positive image, as well as to defend their societies against a negative image projected by some foreign actor, it is then paramount to have something that could be called a “bulwark.”It would enable protect the “immune system”of the nation and society. The resources for building such a bulwark, so to speak, are ready to hands:
• national identity,
• own agenda, meanings, symbols;
• development of strategic communication for the national undertakings of utmost importance;
• news management instead of information control;
• educated society;
• development and safeguarding of historiography and Armenian studies.
And the most critical things are formulated national interests, public trust, ideal legitimacy of the authority, justice, or in a nutshell: Esse quam videri (to be, rather than to seem to be).
47
L.Ayvazyan
<21st CENTURY», № 1 (7), 2010
Case study: Turkey-Armenia “Football diplomacy"
Based on the materials and main ideas of this article, the following approximation of the process development can be pictured with regards to the subject matter:
• a part of global geopolitical developments;
• perception management;
• efforts to modify identities;
• verbal, visual and event-related components;
• work with groups (Brown) [9, p. 733].
Turkey
a) in the USA, EU and other countries (perception management process)
• Genocide recognition process (USA, Congress, states, other countries);
• Public diplomacy (Track 2 diplomacy) [15];
• Public diplomacy, informal contacts (TARC, etc.);
• Return of the bank deposits;
• Ambassadors (recalling Evans, refusing to appoint Hoagland);
• Live broadcast of the Congress hearings;
• Public diplomacy events (cultural/educational/academic components, etc.);
• Books by Peter Balakian and other authors;
• Ararat and other movies;
• System of a Down rock band;
• New policy of the G word in mass media;
• Changes in textbooks;
• Orhan Pamuk (Nobel laureate) and others,
• Armenian Genocide Museum in Washington, DC;
• Duduk, etc.;
• Football diplomacy.
b) in Turkey (“new policy", credibility fabrication, efforts to alter the image, efforts to draw lines between Armenians)
• Genocide denial (deportations took place, not a Genocide);
• Taking the victim stance (there were victims on both sides);
• Dodging responsibility for genocide (Turkey has been involved in the WWI);
• Hrant Dink;
• “We are all Armenians” (empathy) and attempts to eliminate the lines between “We” and “Others”;
48
<21st CENTURY», № 1 (7), 2010
L.Ayvazyan
• “Forgive us, Armenians” (fragmentation, substitution of the whole by a part of the society, building up emotionality and showing the way out of it);
• Ergenekon, pro and con parties of the process;
• Seeming controversy with Azerbaijan;
• Repeated threats from Azerbaijan;
• Crypto-Armenians;
• News leak (alleging that Gul’s mother is Armenian, etc.);
• Pointing out the input of Armenians in Turkey;
• Renovation of Akhtamar church and other Armenian monuments;
• “We listen the same music”;
• Eurovision song contest (voting results in Turkey);
• Flag “wars”, etc;
• Attempts to link the normalization of relations with the Karabakh issue, etc.;
Armenia
(absence of an own agenda and chaos in informational arena, flowing with the current)
• Social consciousness is unprotected;
• Referring to international community, mass media, experts to support own policies;
• Taking the stance of a “small nation”, mentioning the blockade, development difficulties, etc.;
• Efforts to reshape the domestic political arena: preparation to the 2012 presidential elections (discrediting certain political forces, etc.);
• Attempts to modify the system of links and values inside the society (attempted attacks on identity);
• Attempts to revise some “moments”, culture, and personalities in the history;
• Criticism of the nationalism;
• Trying to change some symbols;
• Emergence of Armenia-Diaspora tensions;
• Constantly mentioning the Turkey-Azerbaijan controversies;
• The claimant is Diaspora (Recognition, Restitution);
• Celebrity diplomacy (Charles Aznavour), etc.
January, 2010
49
L.Ayvazyan
<21st CENTURY», № 1 (7), 2010
Reference Sources and Literature
1. Ayvazyan, Lianna, Democracy, Press, Foreign Policy: Armenia’s Image in the American Press. Seminar proceedings, Yerevan, 1999.
2. Taylor Philip M., Munitions of the Mind. A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day. Manchester University Press, 1995.
3. Taylor Philip M, Global Communication, International affairs and the Media since 1945. Routledge, 1997.
4. Judith A. McHale (U.S. Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs), Remarks to Vilnius University, December 11, 2009
5. Cooper Robert, The Breaking of Nations. Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century. Grove Press, New York, 2003.
6. Kunczik Michael, Images of Nations and International Public Relations. Lawrence Erl-baum Associates, Publishers. Mahwah, New Jersey, 1997.
7. Metaphors and Modern War: Biological, Computer and Cognitive Viruses.
8. Nye Jr Joseph S., The Information Revolution and American Soft Power, Asia-Pacific Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2002.
9. Pecheptsov, G.G. Imageology. Refl-book, 2000. (in Russ.)
10. Boulding, Kenneth, National Image and International System. In James N. Rosenau (Ed.) International Politics and Foreign Policy (422-431). London: Collier Macmillan Inc., 1969.
11. Political Imageology, M. Aspect Press, 2006. (in Russ.)
12. Galumov, E.A., Russia’s Image as an Instrumental Approach. (in Russ.)
13. Jervis Robert, The Logic of Images in International Relations. Columbia University Press. A Morningside Book, 1970.
14. Joseph S. Nye, Jr, Get Smart: Combining Hard and Soft Power, Foreign Affairs, July/ August, p. 160.
15. United States - Armenia Relationship, 1991-2007: A Conversation with Our First Five Ambassadors Webcast (Library of Congress).
16. Lianna Ayvazyan, The Image of Russia in Armenian Mass Media. Political Expertise (POLITEX), #3, 2007 (Conference on Political science and Political Processes in Russia and CIS Countries, in post-Soviet Realm, Eurasian Network of Political Studies, Moscow. http://www.politex.info/content/view/370/30/
17. Tehranian Majid, Global Communication and International Relations: Changing Paradigms and Policies. The International Journal of Peace Studies, Vol 2_1.
18. Manheim Jarol B, Strategic Public Diplomacy and American Foreign Policy: The Evolution of Influence. New York, Oxford. Oxford University Press, 1994.
19. Boyd-Barrett Oliver, Judith Miller, The New York Times, and the Propaganda Model. Journalism Studies, Vol.5, Number 4, 2004, p. 435-449.
20. Fisher Ali, Music for the Jilted Generation: Open-Source Public Diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 3 (2008), 1-24.
21. Peter van Ham, The Rise of the Brand State:The Postmodern Politics of Image and Reputation (in Phil Taylor's Web Site).
50
<21st CENTURY», № 1 (7), 2010
L.Ayvazyan
22. Simon Anholt: Countries Must Earn Better Images through Smart Policy. Interviewee: Simon Anholt, Editor, Nation Branding and Public Diplomacy. November 6, 2007 Council of Foreign Relations (www.cfr.org).
23. Haass, Richard The Age of Nonpolarity// Russia in Global Politics, #4, 2008.
24. Haass, Richard, Learning from the Cold War, Project Syndicate (www.project-syndicate.org).
25. Joseph Nye, Soft Power and European- American Affairs. «Free thought – XXI», №10, 2004. . (in Russ.)
26. Jervis Robert, Perceptions and Misperception in International Relations. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey, 1976.
27. Kashlev, Yu., Galumov, E, Information and PR in International relations, Moscow, Iz-vestia, 2003. . (in Russ.)
28. Information, Diplomacy, Psychology. The Diplomatic Academy of Russia, M., Izvestia, 2002. . (in Russ.)
51
