<p>Dans la mondialisation d’aujourd’hui et dans un monde plus démocratique et ouvert, la diplomatie publique est devenue un sujet qui suscite de plus en plus d’intérêt. Selon Anholt, un analyste de société anglais, tous les gouvernements doivent, pour le compte du peuple, des institutions et des entreprises, développer une stratégie pour améliorer et fortifier la perception du pays. La théorie utilisée est celle d’Anholt appelée <em>Nation branding</em> où il applique une théorie commerciale dans le monde des sciences politiques et sociales en comparant les pays aux marques commerciales. Dans ce mémoire, en utilisant les méthodes de l’étude du corpus et l’entretien, je compare les stratégies et les objectifs de la diplomatie publique de la France et de la Suède. Après avoir fait un inventaire des cinq grandes voies de promouvoir un pays à l’extérieur et après avoir regardé les stratégies actuelles des deux pays, on trouve de nombreuses similarités, surtout dans les stratégies des cinq voies de promouvoir un pays. Les différences se trouvent ailleurs. Par exemple la Suède n’hésite pas à comparer l’image du pays avec une marque commerciale selon la théorie de <em>Nation branding</em> tandis que la France est plus hésitante, mais le nouveau ministre des Affaires étrangères et européennes en France est favorable à la notion. D’autre part, j’ai pu constater que l’optique suédoise de la diplomatie publique correspond plutôt à une volonté de placer la Suède sur la scène mondiale et d’instaurer un sentiment de <em>good will</em> tandis que la France souhaite avant tout sauvegarder son rang de puissance mondiale et considère la position forte de sa langue comme une condition nécessaire pour ce faire. L’action culturelle extérieure suédoise s’organise surtout depuis la Suède, parce que la Suède n’a pas de réseau culturel comparable à celui de la France. La mise en place du Conseil de la promotion de l’image de la Suède dans le monde permet partiellement de contrer la grandeur de la France.</p> / <p>In the globalization of today, in a more democratic and open world, public diplomacy has become a subject that gets more and more attention. According to Anholt, a British social analyst, all governments should, on behalf of the people, the institutions and the companies, develop a strategy to improve and strengthen the perception of the country. The theory applied is Anholt’s <em>Nation Branding</em> where he uses the ideas of branding for the public diplomacy of a country. He likes to compare countries to commercial brands. The aim of this minor thesis is to compare the strategies and objectives of the public diplomacy of today in France and Sweden. To reach my conclusions I have collected information from Anholt’s books of <em>Nation branding</em> and from the official websites of the different national administrations. I also made interviews with people involved in the matter. There are five ways to communicate the image of a country abroad. France and Sweden have similar strategies within these fields. The differences are to be found, foremost in the way of talking about the country as a brand and the value of <em>Nation Branding</em>. It’s a part of the Swedish strategy while the French are more reluctant. At the same time, the French minister of foreign and European affairs, Kouchner, seems to be influenced by the ideas behind <em>Nation Branding</em>. I have also come to the conclusion that the aim of the Swedish public diplomacy regards primary to place Sweden on the world map and to create a sense of good will while the main priority of France is to stay a leading world nation and considers the language aspect very important to do so. The Swedish cultural diplomacy is organized at the head office in Stockholm while the French have an immense network of cultural institutes. As Sweden is not represented worldwide, the Swedish solution is a national council of international representations that work together to form a strategy to promote Sweden.</p>

Dans la mondialisation d’aujourd’hui et dans un monde plus démocratique et ouvert, la diplomatie publique est devenue un sujet qui suscite de plus en plus d’intérêt. Selon Anholt, un analyste de société anglais, tous les gouvernements doivent, pour le compte du peuple, des institutions et des entreprises, développer une stratégie pour améliorer et fortifier la perception du pays. La théorie utilisée est celle d’Anholt appelée Nation branding où il applique une théorie commerciale dans le monde des sciences politiques et sociales en comparant les pays aux marques commerciales. Dans ce mémoire, en utilisant les méthodes de l’étude du corpus et l’entretien, je compare les stratégies et les objectifs de la diplomatie publique de la France et de la Suède. Après avoir fait un inventaire des cinq grandes voies de promouvoir un pays à l’extérieur et après avoir regardé les stratégies actuelles des deux pays, on trouve de nombreuses similarités, surtout dans les stratégies des cinq voies de promouvoir un pays. Les différences se trouvent ailleurs. Par exemple la Suède n’hésite pas à comparer l’image du pays avec une marque commerciale selon la théorie de Nation branding tandis que la France est plus hésitante, mais le nouveau ministre des Affaires étrangères et européennes en France est favorable à la notion. D’autre part, j’ai pu constater que l’optique suédoise de la diplomatie publique correspond plutôt à une volonté de placer la Suède sur la scène mondiale et d’instaurer un sentiment de good will tandis que la France souhaite avant tout sauvegarder son rang de puissance mondiale et considère la position forte de sa langue comme une condition nécessaire pour ce faire. L’action culturelle extérieure suédoise s’organise surtout depuis la Suède, parce que la Suède n’a pas de réseau culturel comparable à celui de la France. La mise en place du Conseil de la promotion de l’image de la Suède dans le monde permet partiellement de contrer la grandeur de la France. / In the globalization of today, in a more democratic and open world, public diplomacy has become a subject that gets more and more attention. According to Anholt, a British social analyst, all governments should, on behalf of the people, the institutions and the companies, develop a strategy to improve and strengthen the perception of the country. The theory applied is Anholt’s Nation Branding where he uses the ideas of branding for the public diplomacy of a country. He likes to compare countries to commercial brands. The aim of this minor thesis is to compare the strategies and objectives of the public diplomacy of today in France and Sweden. To reach my conclusions I have collected information from Anholt’s books of Nation branding and from the official websites of the different national administrations. I also made interviews with people involved in the matter. There are five ways to communicate the image of a country abroad. France and Sweden have similar strategies within these fields. The differences are to be found, foremost in the way of talking about the country as a brand and the value of Nation Branding. It’s a part of the Swedish strategy while the French are more reluctant. At the same time, the French minister of foreign and European affairs, Kouchner, seems to be influenced by the ideas behind Nation Branding. I have also come to the conclusion that the aim of the Swedish public diplomacy regards primary to place Sweden on the world map and to create a sense of good will while the main priority of France is to stay a leading world nation and considers the language aspect very important to do so. The Swedish cultural diplomacy is organized at the head office in Stockholm while the French have an immense network of cultural institutes. As Sweden is not represented worldwide, the Swedish solution is a national council of international representations that work together to form a strategy to promote Sweden.

針對外界流傳已久的中國威脅論，中國於2003年底開始推出「和平崛起」論述，主張中國以和平的方式崛起，並且旨在維護和平、以和平為目的。除了基於國際環境給予的動力與壓力之外，中國決策者對中國崛起的自信，以及期望建立一套新的國家發展論述促使和平崛起戰略的出台。中國建立了以和平崛起為目標的國家發展戰略，其中對外建構了一套和平崛起外交戰略，具體落實在大國外交、睦鄰外交、與發展中國家關係及多邊外交上。本研究自中國崛起的背景著手，從國際環境、國家實力與決策者認知理解中國提出和平崛起的原因、目的與特色，並觀察中國相應而生的具體外交作為。最後，本研究指出和平崛起外交戰略面臨到中美權力競逐與矛盾問題、中日安全困境與衝突利益問題、領海與資源爭議以及台灣問題的嚴格考驗。 / This dissertation focuses on the “peaceful rise” argument brought by China in the end of 2003. By contending that China will rise by peace, for peace, and peacefully, the so-called “peaceful rise” argument tried to counter “China threat” argument, which distributed for a long time. The making of China’s “peaceful rise” national strategy is motivated and forced by the international environment. On top of that, the confidence of Chinese decision-makers for a rising China provides power to the formation of the new national strategy as well as the expectation for a new national development discourse. Following the national development strategy which aims at a peacefully rising China, the “peaceful rise” diplomatic strategy was built by a series of concrete foreign policies, including “Big-power diplomacy,” “Good-neighboring diplomacy,” “Relations with developing countries,” and “Multi-lateral diplomacy”. This dissertation starts from the background of a rising China, comprehends the reason, goal and character of China’s “peaceful rise” by international environment, national power, and decision-maker’s cognitive approaches. Moreover, concrete foreign policies accompanying its national strategy are analyzed. Finally, this research finds that the peaceful rise diplomatic strategy needs to deal with certain challenges such as Sino-U.S. power struggle with conflicting issues, Sino-Japan security dilemma with conflicting issues, peripheral territorial sea and land disputes, and last but not least, the Taiwan problem.

能源是經濟和社會發展的重要基礎和戰略資源。近百年中，能源安全不斷的被各國列為首要問題。隨著中國改革開放，國家經濟不斷成長，成為世界經濟大國，其能源的需求量日趨增加，從自給自足到至今依賴進口，使中國將能源外交列為外交戰略的主要目標，藉由走出去得戰略，積極到海外尋找能源。在這種情況下，能源外交顯然將成為繼大國外交與周邊外交後，中國外交政策的第三個重要環節。 開發中國家具有豐富的能源，再加上中國以開發中國家自居，因此開發中國家在中國的外交政策上，佔有重要地位，且可配合中國國家經濟發展。中國藉由其與開發中國家建立並維持良好的外交關係，以為中國尋找迫切需要的能源。 中國積極透過多邊組織或是雙邊接觸，向非洲、拉丁美洲尋找油源。中國能源問題不僅關係著中國的經濟發展，在擴展能源佈局全球的同時，也引起國際的注意，意涵著這是國際能源戰略問題，更是國際外交爭議性議題。 中國為化解能源進口來源過於集中的風險，於是拉美及非洲成為中國石油進口的戰略來源地。中國將觸角伸向拉美及非洲地區，其中對委內瑞拉及蘇丹這兩個國家最為積極，近期拉美的左傾化浪潮，委內瑞拉查韋斯政權與美國對抗，以及蘇丹有關達富爾的人權問題，使得中國的能源外交被國際社會說成與美國分庭抗禮及罔顧人權，造成中國受國際社會的譴責。 本文研究發現，中國與開發中國家能源外交有助於提升中國國際影響力，「能源競爭」與「權力競爭」是中國對非洲及拉丁美洲的能源外交目的。中國的能源外交對各地區之目的有所不同，不一定都是以獲取能源為主要目的，有時權力競爭反而佔據相當的份量，即中國能源外交之目的有時為了能源競爭，此時著重於取得能源；但有時卻不是為了能源競爭，能源本身不是目的，而只是工具，其真正目的是權力競爭。 / Energy is an important strategic resource and the critical basis of economic and social development. During the last hundred years, energy security has been identified as primary problem. With its successful open-door reform, China became the world economic giant of the constantly growing up of the national economy. With the increasing needs of oil energy day by day, China was transferred from an oil self-sufficient country to an oil import one. Now, one goal of the diplomatic strategy is the energy diplomacy. With the strategy of “going out” looking for the energy abroad, China is searching for oil resource actively. In this situation, the diplomacy of energy will obviously become the third important aspect of the China’s foreign policy, in addition to major power diplomacy and diplomacy with neighboring countries. Developing countries with the abundant energy, plus China itself poses as a developing country, developing countries occupies an important position in Chinese foreign policy in general, China's national economic development in particular. For the purpose of acquisition of oil energy, China has to maintain actively good diplomatic relations for developing countries. So China looks for the oil source to Africa, Latin America through both multilateral organizations and bilateral relations. The question of the Chinese energy is not merely only concerning the economic development of China, but also its global strategy of energy acquisition. So that it has attracted international concerns and became a controversial issue of international diplomacy. China has made every effort to reduce the risk that the import of energy resources overly concentrates, and, consequently, Latin America and Africa become the strategic source of China's petroleum imports. China stretches the feeler to Latin America and Africa, among them the most positive to these are two countries, i.e., Venezuela and Sudan. The left-leaning political tide in Latin America recently, the regime of Chavez in Venezuela confronting with U.S.A., and the human rights issue of Sudan, China’s energy diplomacy is to be condemned by the international community, because of deliberately confrontation with the United States and ignorance of human rights. This study discovers that the energy diplomacy will be helpful for China’s influences in the international arena and its major purpose is for either energy or power in Africa and Latin America. The Chinese diplomacy of energy varies in terms of geographic factor. Sometimes, Chinese energy diplomacy is for energy acquisition so as to resolve its development needs, sometimes for power and energy is only an instrument.

South Africa is seen as a major destination for refugees and asylum-seekers and is, according to the 2010 Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the world’s highest destination country for asylum-seekers, mainly from Sub-Saharan Africa. Following the 1994 democratic elections, there was a transformation in foreign policy, embracing the African Agenda, and South Africa became a major country of destination because of its relative prosperity in Africa. As a State Party to the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention on the Status of Refugees, South Africa is under a legal obligation to protect refugees and grant them legal rights. At the same time, South African citizens, who had legitimate aspirations that the 1994 democratic government would address their development challenges, opposed the significant flow of refugees into the country by violent acts of xenophobia. The government, seen as a moral authority internationally with human rights being a key principle underpinning its foreign policy, found itself between the promotion of the African Agenda and its commitments to its own citizens. The refugee issue was addressed in the United Nations where the government made multilateral diplomacy a central platform of its foreign policy, a policy embedded in Africa and the South. South Africa is used as a case study to determine how it used multilateral diplomacy in the United Nations refugee regime through its coalition, the African Group, to address the migration issue. The study draws out the weaknesses of the international refugee regime by discussing the roles of two important diplomatic actors: the sovereign states in the United Nations General Assembly, and the international organization mandated to supervise the international refugee regime, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. South Africa’s foreign policy objective of promoting the African Agenda at times conflicts with the promotion of its national interest. Its progressive Constitution (1996) provides economic, social, and cultural rights to refugees, to the resentment of its own citizens, who view the refugees as beneficiaries of the United Nations. The study provides a critical analysis of South Africa’s multilateral diplomacy, and also provides the following recommendations where South Africa could use this mode more effectively to address the migration issue: Reform the international refugee regime; Allocate funds from the United Nations regularly assessed budget to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; and, Develop an international normative regulatory framework for irregular migrants. / Dissertation (MDiplomatic Studies)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / Political Sciences / Unrestricted