T.C. ISTANBUL KULTUR UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF GRADUATE STUDIES LANGUAGE TEACHING A MEANS OF CULTURAL DIPLOMACY: A FRAMEWORK FOR ARABIC LANGUAGE TEACHING AS A MEANS OF PALESTINIAN CULTURAL DIPLOMACY IN 21st-CENTURY TURKEY Master of Arts Thesis by Jehad M. I. ABUJAZAR 1900004745 Department: International Relations Programme: International Relations Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Dr. Hazal PAPUÇÇULAR DECEMBER 2021 T.C ISTANBUL KULTUR UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF GRADUATE STUDIES Master of Arts Thesis by Jehad M. I. ABUJAZAR 1900004745 Department: International Relations Programme: International Relations Supervisor and Chairperson: Asst. Prof. Dr. Hazal PAPUÇÇULAR Members of Examining Committee: Asst. Prof. Dr. Nazlı Çağın Bilgili Asst. Prof. Dr. Nihan Akıncılar Köseoğlu (Fenerbahçe University) Substitute Members: Asst. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Cemal Ertürk Asst. Prof. Dr. Radiye Funda Karadeniz (Gaziantep University) DECEMBER 2021 i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to present my sincere appreciation to my supervisor Dr Hazal PAPUÇÇULAR for her tremendously supportive and professional guidance throughout the thesis. Without her valuable feedback and eye-opening remarks, I would have not reached this point. My deepest gratitude also goes to Dr Mahmoud Qaddom who provided me with the most valuable resources related to the Arabic language in Turkey and facilitated the interviews with some of the teachers and learners. I owe special thanks to the wonderful people who have helped me throughout my journey in Turkey and have set the most comfortable conditions for me to concentrate on my thesis. The greatest gratitude is attributed to my family, my source of inspiration, especially my mother who showered me with Duaa, and my daughter whose photo on my computer’s desktop was my source of motivation whenever I felt lazy or exhausted. I devote this study to free and independent Palestine on its historical territories and with Jerusalem as its eternal capital. December 01, 2021 Jehad ABUJAZAR ii ABSTRACT Cultural diplomacy is profoundly about promoting culture by formal and informal means and actors, for the sake of advancing international relations. As such, language – the treasure-house of culture and its vehicle of transference– and language teaching are deemed crucial means of cultural diplomacy that countries use to provide a good image and build better understanding and communication for better cooperation on bilateral and multilateral bases. In this regard, this study, with reference to the role of language teaching as a means of cultural diplomacy and the current flourishing of Arabic language teaching and learning in Turkey, presents a framework for utilizing Arabic language teaching as a means of Palestinian cultural diplomacy that advances the Palestinian cause in Turkey. The research follows a ‘constructive structure’ –similar to Lego structure– in which recent arguments are based on the outcomes of earlier ones. Accordingly, a study of primary and secondary sources which presents a conceptual and practical background of language teaching as a means of cultural diplomacy was conducted. Besides, Data about the current endeavors of Arabic language teaching in Turkey regarding the Palestinian cause were collected by interviewing a group of Palestinian teachers and Turkish learners. The findings were applied to the Palestinian cultural traits and the Turkish stance towards the Palestinian cause, Arabs and Arabic language to draw a framework for a strategy of Palestinized Arabic language teaching in 21st-century Turkey. The study has revealed that the richness of the Arabic language and the welcoming Turkish environment are guarantors for the success of the Palestinized Arabic language teaching in contributing to the perseverance of the Turkish public and governmental support to the Palestinian cause, and the strengthening of the Palestinian strategic depth. Keywords: Cultural diplomacy; language teaching; the Arabic language; Arabic language teaching; Palestinian-Turkish relations; the Palestinian cause; Arab-Turkish relations. iii ÖZ Kültürel diplomasi, uluslararası ilişkileri geliştirmek adına, resmi ve gayri resmi araçlar ve aktörler aracılığıyla olabildiğince kültürü tanıtarak onun reklamını yapmakla ilgilidir. Mesela, kültürün hazinesi ve aktarım aracı olan dil ve dil öğretimi, ülkelerin iyi bir imaj sağlamak, ikili ve çok taraflı temellere dayanan daha iyi iş birliği için daha iyi bir anlayış ve iletişim kurmak amacıyla kullandıkları önemli kültürel diplomasi araçları olarak kabul edilir. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışma, kültürel diplomasinin bir aracı olarak dil öğretiminin rolüne ve Türkiye'de Arapça öğretiminin ve öğreniminin şu anki gelişimine atıfta bulunarak Arap dili öğretiminin, Türkiye’de Filistin davasını geliştiren Filistin kültürel diplomasisinin bir aracı olarak kullanılmasına yönelik bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Araştırma, sonraki argümanların daha öncekilerin sonuçlarına dayandığı, Lego yapısına benzer bir “yapıcı yapı” izlemektedir. Bu doğrultuda, kültürel diplomasi aracı olarak dil öğretiminin kavramsal ve pratik arka planını sunan birincil ve ikincil kaynaklara yönelik bir çalışma yapılmıştır. Buna ek olarak, bir grup Filistinli öğretmen ve Türk öğrenci ile görüşmeler yapılarak Türkiye'de Arap dili öğretiminin Filistin davasına ilişkin mevcut çabaları hakkında veriler toplanmıştır. Bulgular, 21. yüzyıl Türkiye'sinde Filistinleştirilmiş Arapça öğretimi stratejisine bir çerçeve çizmek için Filistin kültürel özelliklerine ve Türklerin Filistin davasına, Araplara ve Arap diline karşı olan duruşuna uygulanmıştır. Çalışma, Arap dilinin zenginliğinin ve Türkiye'nin misafirperver ortamının, Filistinlileştirilmiş Arapça öğretiminin Türk kamuoyunun azminin ve devletin Filistin davasına desteğinin devam etmesine katkıda bulunma ve Filistin stratejik derinliğini güçlendirmedeki başarısının garantörleri olduğunu göstermiştir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Kültürel diplomasi; dil öğretimi; Arapça dili; Arapça dil öğretimi; Filistin-Türkiye ilişkileri; Filistin davası; Arap-Türk ilişkileri. iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Types of Cultural Diplomacy …………………………………………. 30 v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................ i ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... ii ÖZ .................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 1. CULTURAL DIPLOMACY: A GENERAL OVERVIEW ............... 6 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6 1.1 Diplomacy: The Concept and the Practice ............................................................... 6 1.2 The Evolution of Diplomacy Throughout History ................................................. 13 1.3 Culture from the Perspective of International Relations ........................................ 19 1.4 Cultural Diplomacy ................................................................................................ 25 1.5 Cultural Diplomacy in Practice .............................................................................. 31 CHAPTER 2. THE CULTURAL AND POLITICAL ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE TEACHING: AN IDEAL FORMULA FOR FUNCTIONAL CULTURAL DIPLOMACY ......................................................................................... 38 2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 38 2.1 Language and Language Teaching: A General Overview ..................................... 38 2.2 Language, Language Teaching and Culture ........................................................... 44 2.3 Language and Language Teaching in Politics ........................................................ 52 2.4 Language Teaching a Means of Cultural Diplomacy ............................................. 60 vi CHAPTER 3. A FRAMEWORK FOR ARABIC LANGUAGE TEACHING AS A MEANS OF PALESTINIAN CULTURAL DIPLOMACY IN 21st-CENTURY TURKEY ......................................................................................................................... 74 3.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 74 3.1 The Palestinian Cultural Traits in Arabic Language Teaching as a Means of Palestinian Cultural Diplomacy .................................................................................... 74 3.2 The Turkish Stance Towards the Palestinian Cause, Arabs and the Arabic Language ...................................................................................................................... 90 3.3 Palestinized Arabic Language Teaching a Strategy of Palestinian Cultural Diplomacy in 21st-Century Turkey ............................................................................. 101 3.4 Wielding Arabic Language Teaching as a Means of Cultural Diplomacy for the Palestinian Cause in Turkey ....................................................................................... 114 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 119 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 124 vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACARA The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority ACTFL The American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages AKP Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (Justice and Development Party) ALT Arabic Language Teaching CD Cultural Diplomacy CHP Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (Republican People’s Party) DFLP Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine EC The European Commission EU The European Union HRW Human Rights Watch ICC Intercultural Communicative Competence LT Language Teaching MENA the Middle East and North Africa MSA Modern Standard Arabic PNA The Palestinian National Authority PFLP Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine PKK Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê (The Kurdistan Workers Party) PLO Palestine Liberation Organization UK The United Kingdom UN The United Nations UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization USA The United States of America USSR The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 1 INTRODUCTION Tracking the diplomatic efforts throughout history shows the evolutional nature of diplomacy as a term and as a practice that shapes international relations. Therefore, analyzing the key factors of diplomacy, which is mainly about maintaining good relations between states in all respects and solving their disputes by peaceful means, implies that modern diplomacy comprehensively goes beyond state-to-state relations. It is due to the fact that the people are the main component of any state and their lifestyle is an important variable of the state regulation. For that, a deeper insight into diplomatic practices has become a must in which the modern concept and practice of diplomacy depends more thoroughly on means that touch the everyday life of the people. This understanding of diplomacy has created new dimensions of the diplomatic effort, and has established new concepts, such as soft power, public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy (CD). ‘Cultural diplomacy’, in this regard, is this form of diplomacy that derives its soul from soft power and its structure from public diplomacy. As such, it is an element of soft power that is directed to the public, touching specifically the main driver of their lifestyle: their culture. For this profound nature of CD, relations based on it are more stable and longer-lasting than relations built merely on political or economic interests. It is due to the fact that although culture is subject to change, it changes very slowly compared to politics that regularly changes in accordance with partisan developments in the state and the developments in global politics; and the economy which changes even faster with the fluctuations of the global market. Addressing culture, language prevails itself as one of its most fundamental elements, and accordingly, language learning and teaching perform crucial cultural and political functions. In that sense, language is not only a tool of expressing culture, but also is its treasure-house and its main vehicle of transference to the posterity and to other communities. Hence, language is the receptacle of culture, and thus, its learning, is the key to access to the hub of its native society and the most efficient way to the acquisition 2 of its culture in practice. Therefore, mastering a given language does not only require learning its alphabet, vocabulary and structures; it goes beyond that to imbibing its culture and engaging with its native society. Based on that, language learning and teaching are deemed crucial means of cultural diplomacy by which a given state presents its socio- cultural aspects to others, giving them more access to its public life with the aim of reflecting its good image and building better understanding and communication for better cooperation on bilateral and multilateral bases. language teaching (LT), on that account, turns the learners to be sources of awareness about the state in their societies and unofficial native ambassadors who are aligned with its causes: advocating them in their countries. Regarding the Palestinian cause in Turkey, Arabic language teaching (ALT) is possible to function as an efficient means of Palestinian cultural diplomacy (CD), for the richness of the language and the welcoming environment in the country. In fact, the more intellectual, political and economic weight the language has, the more attractive it becomes, and thus, the more soft-power it generates. Within this framework, the richness of Arabic language: the language of Quran (the holy book of over 2 billion of the world population), the most spreading language in the MENA region (that has a central global geopolitical position stretching over vast territories in Asia and Africa, and controlling critical trade routes), and the official language of 22 countries (with vast human and natural resources) makes it a very valuable source of soft power to Palestine (where it is the mother tongue). For that richness as well as the geographic affinity, the long-shared history and the massive-shared cultural heritage between Turkey and the Arab region (in general) and Palestine (in specific), the Arabic language in Turkey is considered more attractive, and its teaching is a more efficient means of CD for the Palestinian cause. Considering the widespread public support for the Palestinian cause and the current strong governmental stance towards the cause, this thesis deems establishing a strategy of Palestinized ALT as a means of Palestinian CD a valuable endeavor to advance the Palestinian cause in 21st-century Turkey. It is expected to contribute primarily to preserving the Turkish public and governmental support to the cause regardless of the political (democratic) developments in the country, and secondly to strengthening the Palestinian strategic depth by presenting a modal of Arab-Muslim collaboration and cooperation on a plurilingual basis. 3 Accordingly, this thesis, with reference to the role of LT as a means of CD and the current flourishing of Arabic language teaching and learning in Turkey, presents a framework for utilizing ALT as a means of Palestinian CD that advances the Palestinian cause. In that context, the main research question of the thesis is two-fold: how is language teaching (LT) deemed a means of cultural diplomacy (CD)? Considering the answer of this fold a framework to the following, the second fold is, how can Arabic language teaching (ALT) be a means of cultural diplomacy (CD) for the Palestinian cause in 21st- century Turkey? To answer the research question, primary and secondary sources have been analyzed for the sake of defining cultural diplomacy, studying the role of language in culture and politics, and evaluating the utilization of LT as a means of CD by tracking previous endeavors of other countries in this regard. Based on that and with reference to the Palestinian culture and the Turkish stance towards the Palestinian cause, Arabs and Arabic language, a framework for ALT as a means of Palestinian CD will be drawn. And to test the findings and collect data about the current scene of ALT in Turkey, the researcher has interviewed 3 Palestinian teachers and 11 Turkish learners of different genders, settings and cultural backgrounds. In accordance with that, the thesis contains three chapters. Chapter one looks at cultural diplomacy as a concept and a practice. In that sense, the concept of cultural diplomacy will be analyzed by defining both culture and diplomacy. Accordingly, the conceptual development of diplomacy and its evolution throughout history will be tracked, and an overview of culture from the perspective of international relations will be presented. Consequently, a distinct conceptual analysis of CD (formal and informal) will be presented, distinguishing it from other related terms. Eventually, a general evaluation of CD in practice will be discussed, covering its objectives, tools, activities, actors, limits, merits and the characteristics of its future success. Chapter two analyzes the cultural and political aspects of language and LT in an attempt to prove the efficiency of LT as a means of CD. At that stage, language and LT will be defined, and their relation with culture and politics will be identified. Based on that and with reference to the outcomes of chapter one, an inclusive study of LT as a means 4 of CD will be presented by linking LT to the attainment of CD objectives, evaluating its role in bilateral relations, discussing its nature as a comprehensive means of CD, and analyzing its applications in CD. Based on the findings of the previous chapters and the responses of the 3 teachers and 11 learners, chapter three will draw a framework for ALT as a means of Palestinian CD in 21st-century Turkey. Accordingly, the Palestinian cultural traits will be broadly studied as major components in the strategy of Palestinized ALT to attain the utmost results of Palestinian CD in Turkey. Then, to understand the cultural and political scenes in Turkey, the Turkish stance towards the Palestinian cause, Arabs and the Arabic language will be evaluated. Finally, the main goals of the Palestinian CD strategy of ALT in 21st-Century Turkey will be set, and the most functional approaches and instruments for its optimal wielding will be identified. The thesis will be finalized in the conclusion section where the final results will be presented, highlighting the main characteristics of the strategy of Palestinized ALT as a means of Palestinian CD in 21st-century Turkey, identifying the bases of its efficiency and optimal utilization, presenting the indicators of its success, and delivering a general insight on the nature of its functionality. Eventually, to have better understanding of how the researched has been conducted, the nature of the study is crucially important to be address. Firstly, this thesis is an empirical study that presents a framework for ALT as a means of Palestinian CD in 21st-century Turkey based on a comprehensive study of the efficiency of LT as a means of CD with reference to previous works and an investigation of the current Turkish scene. Secondly, the discussion in this thesis is built with a constructive structure in which recent arguments are based on the outcomes of earlier ones (similar to Lego structure). Lastly, this thesis is a cultural-based international relations study in which any political or historical arguments are taken from a cultural perspective in the first place. Therefore, any social group is looked at from a sociolinguistic dimension (not ethnical, nor political); for instance, Turks are deemed the speakers of Turkish before the Republic, Arabs are the speakers of Arabic, Turkish people are the citizens of the Republic of Turkey where Turkish is the official language, and Arab countries are the countries where Arabic is the 5 mother tongue. Also, whenever the Islamic world is mentioned, it refers to the countries where Islam is the primary religion, and Islam, accordingly, is dealt with from a sociocultural perspective (not an ideological nor political). Besides, social features, such as hospitality and family solidarity are deemed relative cultural characteristics that don't necessarily apply to every member of the society, but instead reflect the general tendency of the society as a whole. 6 CHAPTER 1. CULTURAL DIPLOMACY: A GENERAL OVERVIEW 1.0 Introduction The term cultural diplomacy (CD) apparently is a combination of two terms- culture and diplomacy, which are both conceptually and practically vague. Therefore, this thesis, in order to present a solid definition of the compound term ‘cultural diplomacy’, will analyze its components first. Consequently, diplomacy will be analyzed first by tracking its conceptual development and evolution throughout history, and discussing its nature, principles, characteristics, elements and functions. Then, an overview of culture from the perspective of international relations will be presented in which the nature of culture will be studied and its influence on contemporary international relations will be evaluated. Based on the study of the two terms, the thesis, in this stage, will present a distinct conceptual analysis of CD (formal and informal) through distinguishing it from other related terms, including cultural soft power, public diplomacy, international cultural relations and intercultural relations. It will also present a general understanding of CD by defining its objectives, tools, activities, and actors as well as discussing its efficiency through analyzing its limits, merits and the characteristics of its future success. 1.1 Diplomacy: The Concept and the Practice To draw a framework for CD, it is essential to understand diplomacy first through analyzing its lexis and conceptually defining its term. Besides, it is crucially important to realize the nature of diplomacy in practice by identifying its relation with foreign policy and soft power, studying the principles of its efficiency, analyzing the elements of the diplomatic activity, and identifying the practicians and scope of diplomacy. The capacity for diplomacy is a crucial method of measurement to states’ legitimacy in which the way of handling foreign affairs in a proper and accepted way is a core factor of a state’s sufficiency (Xu, 2017, p. 18). Accordingly, diplomatic efforts have been occupying a wide range of political relations since the very existence of human gatherings. However, ‘diplomacy’ as a term has not entered the dictionary of international relations until the late 18th century (Leira, 2016, p. 28). 7 Edmund Burke introduced the term ‘Diplomacy’ into English in 1796. He derived it from the French word ‘diplomatie’ (Tyrocity, n.d.). French generated this term from the ancient Greek ‘diplōma’ which referred to official documents that were folded in two and conferred a privilege to the bearer- something that resembles the modern passport. Later, it was used about any solemn documents especially those related to agreements (Marks, 2020 ). Another usage of the term emerged in the late 17th century and the early 18th century when the letters of privilege ‘diploma’, especially collections of treaties between princes, were scrutinized for authentication and collected in sets under the collective term diplomatica. This term was also used to refer to the science of authenticating old official documents (Leira, 2016, p. 31). The term turned to be used not only for the total body of treaties, but also for the people who were engaged in negotiating them when ‘Core diplomatique’ (the diplomatic body) was used to refer to the collective of minsters (Leira, 2016, p. 31). Finally, the French ‘diplomate’ (Diplomat or diplomatist) was used in the 18th century to refer to the person who has the authority to negotiate on behalf of a state (Marks, 2020 ). The etymological background of ‘Diplomacy’ was of treaties, duplicity, secrecy and privilege. At the beginning of its appearance, though, the term held negative connotations. Since its early emergence –during the French Revolution– it was largely seen as a term of abuse associated with absolutism and aristocracy (Leira, 2016, p. 33). Diplomacy, also, was affixed to war and alliance. It was associated with the ancient regime as one of the key pejorative terms (Leira, 2016, p. 36). Nevertheless, calls for ‘new diplomacy’ based on trade, rather than intrigue and politics arose after the concept was coined. Around 1900, ‘new diplomacy’ was more linked to openness and cooperation, and it encountered great re-evaluation after the world wars, to become a means for peace and cooperation- focusing on evolution and reform, not on revolution and abandonment (Leira, 2016, p. 36). Regularly defined with practices, such as communication, representation and negotiation, the concept of diplomacy disposed of its negative association with war to couple more with cooperation and peacemaking (Leira, 2016, p. 36) . 8 Currently, ‘diplomacy’, besides its general definition as the “skill in dealing with people without upsetting them”, is mainly defined by Longman dictionary as “the job or activity of managing the relationships between countries” (LONGMAN, n.d.). The same way Oxford dictionary defines it, but with a slight addition by identifying its practicians, as “The profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations, typically by a country's representatives abroad.” (OXFORD, n.d.). In political science, ‘diplomacy’ is a vague term that varies according to the user and the circumstances it is used in. While Machiavelli sees it as a tool of deception to grant more powers (Berridge, 2001, p. 24), Guicciardini considers it a crucial factor of upkeeping good relations, asserting that having a good reputation is a crucial element for fruitful negotiations (Berridge, 2001, p, 43). According to Jose Calvet De Magalhaes, diplomacy is “an instrument of foreign policy for the establishment and the development of peaceful contacts between the governments of different states through the use of intermediaries mutually recognized by the respective parties.” (De Magalhaes, 1997, p. 59). Cultural Diplomacy Dictionary of the Academy for Cultural Diplomacy, moreover, defines diplomacy as “The practice of interaction among different actors to gain strategic advantage and pursue one’s self-interest.” adding that in the field of international relations, diplomacy particularly refers to “the practices of negotiations conducted between representatives of nations or organizations on matters such as making peace, trade, war, economics, culture, the environment, and human rights.” (Chakraborty, 2013, p. 38) Based on the previous lexical analysis of the term and its various definitions, it clearly appears that diplomacy is at most a governmental strategy, its ultimate goal, besides favoring national interests, is to maintain peace between states via international law and other peaceful means (Zamorano, 2015, p. 1). It employs tact to gain strategic advantages or to reach mutually accepted solutions through negotiation that is mainly centered on the non-confrontational manner (Tyrocity, n.d.). Thus, diplomacy is perceived as a means of cooperation between allies and a tool of peaceful conflict resolution between adversaries by which states communicate, influence one another, bargain, bridge their gaps, and adjust their differences (Güleç, 2021, p. 5). Diplomacy is a means for states to assert themselves in the international arena by achieving their goals and protecting their interests without violating the international order https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/manage https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/relationship 9 or arousing the animosity of other states. Formal diplomacy is regarded as an instrument of statecraft which is used for bilateral relations between states (Kleiner, 2009, p. 1). This type of diplomacy is considered a regularized system in which states officially communicate through the exchange of ambassadors, the maintenance of embassies, participation in conferences and engaging in direct negotiations (Griffiths, O'Callaghan, & Roach, 2008, p. 81). The failure of diplomacy, therefore, is a bad omen that most often ensures war. Nonetheless, diplomacy is useful even during the war. In other words, although it is a crucial means of soft power, it can be used smartly with hard power to achieve better outcomes (Nye, 2004, p. 147). In wartime, diplomacy is crucial in conducting the transition paths from protest to threat, dialogue to negotiation, the ultimatum to retaliation, and from conflict to peace and reconciliation (Marks, 2020 ). Through diplomacy, the coalitions that deter or make wars are built or tended. Diplomacy weakens the alliances of enemies and keeps potential hostile powers passive. It contrives the determination of war, and it forms, strengthens or preserves post-conflict peace. It, over the long term, strives to establish an international order in which disputes are nonviolently resolved and states are more cooperative. (Marks, 2020) For this pivotal role diplomacy plays in war and peace, its practitioners, who are primarily but not solely diplomats, must acquire distinct skills of carrying messages, negotiating and resolving quarrels between peoples and states. They are armed with words and backed by their state or organization’s power. They help leaders to build a better understanding of the attitudes and actions of foreigners and to develop tactics and strategies that will shape the behavior of the foreigners, and more particularly, the behavior of foreign governments. Consequently, the wiser diplomacy and its practitioners are used, the more successful foreign policy is (Marks, 2020). On this account, diplomacy is a key instrument of foreign policy, but it is not necessarily synonymous with it since both are conceptually and practically different. Foreign policy is considered the substance, aims and attitudes of a state’s relations with others, and diplomacy is employed to put them into effect. As such, foreign policy establishes the broad strategies, and sets tactics, and to achieve its objectives it may employ, besides diplomacy (which is mainly concerned with dialogue and negotiations), 10 other forms of violence, such as secret agents, subversion and even war. Diplomacy, in this regard, is an instrument of the state and the state system that substitutes force or underhanded means. It utilizes the state’s comprehensive powers to adjust its differences with other states using primary ‘nonviolent’ tools, including international dialogue and negotiations which are mainly conducted by accredited envoys and other political leaders. However, diplomacy can be cursive that may exploit the threat to use force or to apply punitive measures (Marks, 2020; Xu, 2017, p. 21). Another key difference between diplomacy and foreign policy is that the latter is enunciated publicly, but the former is usually conducted in confidence, although in contemporary international relations, foreign policy and diplomacy’s progress and results are almost made public. They both aim to further national interests. However, while safeguarding and enhancing those national interests, by all means, is the responsibility of foreign policy, strengthening the state in relation to other states by advancing the interests in its charge is the purpose of diplomacy (Marks, 2020). Accordingly, if soft power is the core means of diplomacy, foreign policy combines both soft and hard powers. Nonetheless, government policies, including its domestic and primarily foreign policies as they reinforce the state’s soft power, they might squander it. Hence, hypocrite, arrogant or indifferent foreign policies are more likely to undermine soft power, and thus diplomacy. Taking the USA during Vietnam War as an example, it lost much of its soft power and could not restore it till the memories of the war receded along with the change in its policies. The same thing happened as a result of the Iraq War, which diminished much of the USA soft power plus its diplomatic efficiency (Nye, 2004, p. 14). For efficient diplomatic interaction, the United Nations Charter set guidelines to identify the main principles and purposes of sovereign states’ diplomatic behaviors. It asserts the mutual respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity, so states are expected to peacefully coexist via practicing mutual non-interference, mutual non-aggression. In this regard, states are equal, and they have the right of mutual benefit. It adds that states must settle all disputes without resorting to force or threat of force- through peaceful means in which diplomacy is based on equality and justice. It, also, emphasizes that building equitable international political and economic orders will be possible when states target peacekeeping and development (United Nations, 1945, p. 55). Those guidelines go along 11 with the main functions of diplomacy which include enforcing the observation of international law, the reinforcement of political, economic and cultural ties between states, enhancing the cooperation and diminishes dispute, and increasing the likelihood of peace (Anonymous, 2011, p. 2). Consequently, the more diplomacy is functional the more likely peace is promoted. Diplomacy functions through the constituent elements of the diplomatic activity, which include the essential (that diplomatic activity cannot be conceived without): representation, information and negotiation; and the complementary: promotion, protection and extension of public services abroad. De Magalhaes considers the complementary elements as an accessory because they may or may not be present depending on various circumstances (De Magalhaes, 1997, p. 122). Regarding the essential elements of the diplomatic activity, negotiation is the most primary. According to the French author L. Constantin, negotiation is “The set of practices that permit the peaceful composition of conflicting or diverging interests of groups or autonomous social interties” (Plaintey, 1980). De Magalhaes classifies international negotiation into two: informal and formal. For him, the main differences between both are that informal negotiation is wider in scope and compasses the different types of contacts between states to harmonize attitudes and to converge views. Formal international negotiation is usually narrower in scope and is held through certain mechanisms to reach an agreement on a specific problem in common or reciprocal interests. He adds that international negotiation, in general, can be of two types- direct negotiation that is undertaken directly by the holders of political power, and indirect negotiation (‘true diplomatic negotiation’ as he described) which is carried out by mediators. Negotiation also can be bilateral or multilateral depending on the number of negotiation parties (De Magalhaes, 1997, p. 111). Apart from the essential elements of diplomatic activity, ‘promotion’ is the most crucial of the complementary elements. It is defined by De Magalhaes as “The set of actions undertaken by the diplomatic agent in order to create or increase a certain type of relations between the receiving state and the sending state” addressing promotion, it is necessary to underline two of its aspects: the promotion of economic relations and the promotion of cultural relations. They are very important for the fact that economic and 12 culture are two sectors which are very critical for any state, and the competition on them is usually very high. Therefore, he asserts that states must act more efficiently in them by attaching experts in these specialized domains to their diplomatic missions. ((De Magalhaes, 1997, p. 122). For efficient promotion, as well, states tend to create a good image of themselves through what is called by Simon Anholt ‘national branding’. The Academy for Cultural Diplomacy in their Cultural Diplomacy Dictionary defines ‘national branding’ as the “Practice of cultural and public diplomacy which aims to shape the image of a country, both externally and domestically, in order to attract tourism receipts, investment capital and talented workforce, expand exports, and foster the country’s cultural and political standing in the world.” Simon Anholt, however, is the founder of this practice, and he is the developer of the National Branding Index. This index measures global perceptions of countries in different directions, such as culture, tourism, exports, investment, governance and immigration (Chakraborty, 2013). National branding and similar practices related to public and cultural activities have become milestones in contemporary diplomacy. What also features contemporary diplomacy is the fact that although bilateral state- to-state diplomacy remains essential, multilateral forms of diplomacy practiced by both state and non-state actors have become indispensable supplements. This development allowed non-state players to have a primary role in the current political arena. For instance, supra-national bodies (e.g., the European Union), regional and international non- governmental organizations (e.g., La Francophonie, and the International Committee of Red Cross), multinational corporations, the media, local and city governments, advocacy networks, influential individuals, and other non-state participants perform many tasks had essentially been done by states. They fight hunger, poverty, droughts and pollution, and promote education, health care and peace (Kleiner, 2009, p. 23; Mark S., 2008, p. 35). Another development in the contemporary globe, which influences the diplomatic practice, is the ‘revolution’ in information and communication technology. Simply, people nowadays have easy and instant access to information, and due to modern means of communication, more people have the power to influence their societies and the policies of their governments (Melissen, 2005, p. 13). For that, ‘digital diplomacy’ or ‘e- diplomacy’ is occupying a prior position in today’s international affairs. ‘Digital 13 diplomacy’ is “a new form of public diplomacy which uses the internet and new information and communication technologies as means for strengthening diplomatic relations” (Chakraborty, 2013, p. 37). It employs greater access to information, greater interaction among individuals, and greater transparency to establish more efficient public diplomacy. That is why the USA and UK have opened specific units of digital diplomacy, especially after the influential role social media played in the Arab Spring (Ibid.). Based on the above analysis of diplomacy, the diplomatic activity that is related to the Palestinian cause according to this thesis is recommended to be conducted through both officials of the State of Palestine and non-state actors –including pro-Palestine domestic and international NGOs, corporations and individuals–. Moreover, mechanisms such as negotiation, promotion and national branding as well as digitalized and non- digitalized CD will be considered primary instruments for the ultimate utilization of the spread of the Arabic language in Turkey to promote the Palestinian cause in the country. 1.2 The Evolution of Diplomacy Throughout History Tracking the evolution of diplomacy in this stage is crucial to understand the development of the diplomatic activity, and identify the weight of CD in the diplomatic agenda of contemporary international relations. As mentioned before, the practice of diplomacy has been conducted since the very beginning of the communication between various gatherings of humankind. Nevertheless, the earliest recorded diplomatic documents were attributed to the great kings of the Near East. They go back to about 2850 BC when treaties held between Mesopotamian city- states were recorded. They were written in Akkadian (Babylonian) which makes it the first diplomatic language, that was used as an international tongue of the Middle East of that time (Marks, 2020 ). However, the first known international peace treaty was the Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty that was held between the pharaoh of Egypt and the ruler of the Hittite Empire following the battle of Kadesh (Price, 2016, p. 32). Diplomacy had long traditions in ancient China and India. In ancient China, diplomacy was an important tradition, especially with the weakness of the Zhou Dynasty that ruled between 1050 – 256 BC. At that time, diplomacy was necessary between the rival states that vied for power and total conquest paying less attention to traditional respects of tutelage to the ‘figurehead monarchy’. The warring states of the 6th century 14 BC needed diplomacy to establish allies, barter land and sign peace treaties. And that was the time of the development of the idealized role of the persuader or as it is known nowadays ‘Diplomat’ (Lewis, 1999, p. 587). In ancient India, diplomacy had a great significance. For instance, Kautilya (also known as Chanakya), the principal advisor to the founder of the Maurya Dynasty, Chandragupta Maurya, in the 3rd century BC wrote what would be considered the oldest treatise on statecraft and diplomacy, called ‘Arthashastra’. In this treatise, he showed how wise kings build alliances and eliminate their adversaries in situations of mutually contesting kingdoms. Arthashastra also contains advice on how to deal with envoys of other kingdoms (Mark J. J., 2020). Diplomacy in Europe can be traced back to the time of warring Greek city-states, where kings needed to communicate during wartime by sending emissaries and messengers. However, the emissary’s mission was limited to wartime. Nonetheless, what can be loosely compared to a modern diplomat is the ‘Greek proxenos’. A Proxenos is usually a privileged member of the society who enjoys cordial relations with both conflicting parties. He acts as a mediator by hosting a gathering, at his expense, to encourage communication between both parties to peacefully and sincerely sort out their differences (Blitz, 2014, p. 4). Nevertheless, unlike modern diplomats, Greek diplomats received no formal training, and had to depend largely on their oratory skills. They also did not enjoy immunity, as for examples, Athens and Sparta used to execute envoys sent by Darius I of Persia (Kurizaki, 2011, pp. 7-8). Greeks, especially during the reign of Alexander, attributed a great deal of their diplomacy to the establishment of cultural relations with native populations of conquered lands through intermingling and intermarriage. Moreover, the Ptolemaic Kingdom and Seleucid Empire usually negotiated peace treaties through marriage alliances during their wars in Near East (Carney, 1996). Unlike Greeks, Romans did not depend much on diplomacy in administration. They invested more in their military capabilities and their diplomacy was limited to legal and commercial purposes. They maintained trade relations within provinces largely through diplomatic means. However, Romans depended greatly on military power, that – as the Greek historian Polybius described– they relied on force in all of their endeavors, believing that once they commit to a task, they are obligated to complete it (Campbell, 2002, p. 167). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_Empire 15 Nonetheless, diplomacy was institutionalized by the Byzantines, who, unlike the ‘Romans’, did not enjoy a hegemonic influence in the region. Thus, they tended to maintain relations with their neighbors through other means than coercion. One of the means they used was awe and sublime in which they impress the visiting envoys of the neighboring states through displaying their absolute superiority, luxury and wealth. They also achieved that through announcing themselves the representatives of God on earth, so if any Christian kingdom attacked them, it would appear as if they waged war on God himself. That act is considered one of the earliest forms of deterrence (Kurizaki, 2011, p. 12). Another means was through indirect bribery that was in form of tributes or large portions of trade stocks. Besides, they used to depend on matrimonial alliances as another means of diplomacy (Hamilton, 2011, p. 22). The widely used means of diplomacy by the Byzantines, however, was the policy of dividing their neighbors through pitting them against each other. To serve this purpose effectively, ‘Skrinion Barbaron’, which could be considered one of the first intelligence agencies of the world, took charge of the mission of collecting information that was used in implementing plots against the neighboring kingdoms and states (Kurizaki, 2011, p. 14). Similar to Byzantium, the Italian city-states were not endowed when it comes to military power, so to stand against their Ottoman counterpart, they strengthened ties among themselves through diplomatic means. Hence, the treaty of Lodi was signed for that purpose (Kurizaki, 2011, p. 15). Maritime Republics of Genoa and Venice, also, established good relations with the Ottoman Empire through the interaction between various merchants, clergymen and diplomats (Goffman, 2007). Accordingly, the states of Northern Italy in the early Renaissance, are credited for founding the early origins of modern diplomacy, especially with the establishment of the first permanent diplomatic missions (Raurke, 2001, p. 273). The Italian Peninsula, as well, was the home of many of the traditions of modern diplomacy, such as the presentation of an ambassador’s credentials to the head of the state (Chaplais, 2003). The French diplomatic system, which is the basis of traditional diplomacy of nowadays, was an evolution to that of the Italian. In 1626, Cardinal Richelieu, who served as the prime minister to King Louis XIII, established the first-ever ministry of foreign affairs to consolidate all the functions of external affairs under one separate department 16 (Tariqul Islam, 2005, p. 60). The minister of foreign affairs became a member of the king’s cabinet, starting from the era of King Louis XIV (Raurke, 2001, p. 282). Richelieu, more significantly, emphasized the aspect of continuity of diplomacy whether in war or peace times (Hill, 1964, p. 94). This attitude towards diplomacy led to the establishment of permanent embassies in all major capitals of Europe (Raurke, 2001, p. 282). And by the time the Thirty Years War broke out in 1618, this system of permanent embassies and resident ambassadors was adopted by entire Europe (Kurizaki, 2011, p. 19). This system contributed significantly to setting this war to an end with the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 which promoted two principles the diplomatic system now is based on (1) All states are sovereign and (2) all states are equal to each other (Cavendish, 1998). In this traditional system which was established after the Treaty of Westphalia, diplomacy was generally practiced secretly on a bilateral basis. However, there were few numbers of multilateral diplomatic efforts that were crowned by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. In this congress, representatives of several European states attended to diplomatically put an end to wars in the continent, especially after the devastation caused by the Napoleonic wars (Kurizaki, 2011, p. 29; Raurke, 2001, p. 282). Nonetheless, a ‘new diplomacy’ was needed after the outbreak of WWI, which traditional diplomacy could not prevent although it could promote peace and stability in the 19th century. After WWI, however, the spotlight was not on Europe or on the empires that had fallen after the war anymore. Consequently, the priority in international relations was given to multilateral diplomacy at the expense of bilateral diplomacy, especially with the need for a more transparent system along with the rise of democracy. Also, the deepening of economic relations alongside the destructive weaponry that was brought by modern science decreased the chances of war. Therefore, nation-states tended to come together to serve their mutual interests, promote collective security and discuss disarmament. Such a new approach was the main engine to the establishment of the League of Nations (Tariqul Islam, 2005, pp. 62-63). The League of Nations, albeit its success in establishing an international community that was able to discuss issues of global concerns, failed to stop the outbreak of WWII (Tariqul Islam, 2005, pp. 62-63). However, it was the catalyst of the flourishing of multilateral diplomacy that paved the way to the establishment of the United Nations 17 (UN) and other intergovernmental and non-governmental international organizations. These international organizations –besides their role in avoiding wars, facilitating technical cooperation and accelerating economic cooperation– aimed to fight hunger, promote development assistance, foster cultural relations, protect human rights and save the environment. This development shifted the concentration of diplomatic activity from merely concentrating on political issues, such as security, to focusing more on economic and social issues (Kleiner, 2009). After WWII and as a result of the competition for world leadership, the ‘Cold War’ erupted between the USA and USSR, establishing for the emergence of ‘cold war diplomacy’. That cold war period from 1945 to 1991 was punctuated with periods of ‘détente’ (relaxation of tension) which was a great chance to practice extensive diplomacy to deescalate tension and maintain the state of de-escalation. However, mutual suspicion and mistrust were the driving forces of the Cold War which even fiercened the competition between the two blocks. In that respect, the concepts of ‘nuclear diplomacy’1 and ‘crisis diplomacy’2 prevailed especially with the escalation of the Cuban Missile Criss in 1962. ‘Summit diplomacy’, which refers to the direct meeting of heads of states to handle critical issues, was another concept that emerged during that era (Tariqul Islam, 2005, p. 67; White, 2006, p. 391). By the end of the Cold War, the bipolar system has been replaced by a multidimensional one [dominated by the US, though] that made diplomacy become global in scope (White, 2006, p. 293). Thus, the role of international practitioners has increased in issues related to economic policies, energy, environment, migration and regional conflicts (Kalın, 2011, p. 17). Globalization and globalism have become the norm of politics of that time, yet issues related to identity and culture manifested as a reactionary response, and calls to promote international cultural communication instead of enhancing the dominance of the Western culture became louder (Heywood, 2011, pp. 182-187). 1 Refers to the interactions between nuclear-armed states in which they threaten to use nuclear weapons either to dissuade an opponent from undertaking an action (deterrence) or to persuade them to call a halt to some action that has begun (compellence) (White, 2006, p. 392). 2 Refers to the sensitive communication and negotiation that a crisis necessitates in a brief and intense period during which the threat of nuclear war is thought to be increasing (White, 2006, p. 392). 18 The US dominance of the global arena has even augmented in the first decade of the 21st century, especially with its ‘war on terror’ after 9\11. Nevertheless, the use of military force and other coercive measures to solve the US’s dispute with the Islamic world brought a significant challenge to the role of diplomacy in international politics, and raised questions about the use of hard and soft types of power. For the backfires the use of hard power caused, the 2nd decade of the 21st century has witnessed a shift of global politics towards soft power instruments. That was due to the previously mentioned role of non-state actors who have influenced the governments especially in issues related to human rights. Also, the dominance of social media and other digital means, which brought matters to the public and played a good role in enhancing transparency between governments and their peoples. All of that led the public to participate more in the political game, which has fostered the means of public diplomacy, and has promoted the cultural aspects of diplomacy. Currently, issues related to the environment, climate and global pandemics are dominating contemporary diplomacy, especially with the serious damages of global warming to the environment and the fatal effects of the ongoing Covid19 pandemic on the international healthcare system. The global repercussions of these developments enforced the feeling that we have the same destiny on this Earth, and thus, calls for more international cooperation have become louder. Given the above track of the diplomatic activity throughout history, CD manifests as a distinctive diplomatic practice, that has become more functional with eruption of the cultural war between USA and USSR as part of the Cold War. And lately, CD has been playing a more significant role in the global arena, especially with the rise of globalization, identity issues and the development of communication and information technologies. Accordingly, this thesis considers CD an essential element of contemporary international relations that is vital for building understanding and cooperation among various states on bilateral and multilateral bases, and that ultimately contributes to global peace and prosperity. 19 1.3 Culture from the Perspective of International Relations Culture is one of the very arguable terms, that have different dimensions and aspects. It is a vague term that humanities scholars, socialists and anthropologists had long debates about. This thesis, however, will analyze culture from the international relations perspective, which adopts the anthropological hypothesis of culture. To understand the concept of culture, it is important to analyze its etymological background and mention its various definitions. Looking at the etymological background of the term ‘culture’, the origin of the word goes back to the Latin ‘cultra’ which mainly means to cultivate the land (the act of preparing land for crops) (Online Etymology Dictionary, n.d.). Culture in the Cambridge Dictionary is “The way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). However, defining culture is a matter of dispute. Although the understanding of culture for humanities scholars is limited to the artistic productions that can be found in any community, such as literature, visual arts, media and the artefacts of everyday life, its definition to the anthropologists is much more comprehensive as described by Margret Mead, “We are our culture” (Yanik, 2005, p. 1). Thus, Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, the founder of anthropology, defines culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (Tylor, 1871, p. 1). To the socialist George Simmel, “culture, as it were, formed intentional subjectivity that emerges out of human life and its intentions and is created by human beings as objectified contents or entities in language, religion, normative orders, legal systems, traditions, artistic artifacts, and so on” (Simmel, 1997, p. 5). The father of American Anthropology, Franz Boas, emphasizes that “culture embraces all the manifestations of social habits of a community, the reactions of the individual as affected by the habits of the group in which he lives, and the product of human activities as determined by these habits” (Boas, 1911, p. 159). Finally, Kroeber and Kluckhohn argue that “culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their 20 attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other as conditioning elements of further action” (Kroeber, 1952, p. 181). Derived from the above definitions, it can be generally understood that culture is a crucial part of human life that manifests in all of its social and (necessarily) political aspects. It takes a long time to develop and is generally transmitted across generations through communication in which it is, as a social trait, taught and learnt. For that, cultures have the ability to interact (with humans and with one another), which consequently, provides culture with a significant social role in shaping human life, and a major political role in forming international relations. For more illustration, culture in its relation with humans is subject to change and influence in both directions in which culture would change and influence human behaviors, and human behavior would change and shape culture. Humankind, accordingly, is a creator and a creation of culture. Social and cultural values, on this account, play a major role in shaping human life in which cultural values, in particular, are a powerful determinant of human behavior, and thus, a major factor of human development. Along with that interaction between culture and humans, cultures themselves have the ability to change or influence one another. Such a behavior, therefore, enhances the idea that cultures are integrated in which a certain part of one culture is related, in some way, to another culture (Xu, 2017, p. 16; Yıldız, 2005, pp. 11-12). The mutual influence of different cultures, in that context, establishes a vital role of culture in international relations. Throughout human history, culture has exercised an important influence on the fates of both individuals and nations, and with the developments of the current age of information and technology, this role has even got bigger where culture has become an essential variable in international relations. As a matter of fact, information and communication technology has accelerated the change of various cultures, which is deemed a challenge to the nature of the global cultural system that works as follow: (1) culture changes very slowly (much more slowly than ideas), (2) accordingly, identities are gently redefined (3) eventually, a major change in the compositions and boundaries of civilizations takes place. Nevertheless, the current accelerating change is considered a dramatic development in the global cultural system; it, according to Mazarr (2006) would whether make the world more homogenous or riskier –if this change was poorly managed– 21 (Mazarr, 1996, p. 193). Within this framework, CD manifests as a crucial instrument of the efficient management of this change (as will be further discussed in the following section.) On the basis of Mazarr (1996) review of the literature of international relations on culture by the end of the Cold War, it manifested that the cultural factors have become predominant in international relations in which they have been the first among equals in the world's driving forces. Accordingly, the influence of culture on international relations emerges in four models. Mazarr summarizes them as follow, Model 1 ‘Culture as equipment for life’, in which cultural attributes substantially contribute to providing human beings with the mental, moral and economic equipment for life. Based on that and according to the standards of capitalist economy, a connection between national culture and national success exists, where some cultures underwrite success better than others. Model 2 ‘Culture as cognitive filter’, in which culture plays a major role in the process of decision making. Leaders and nations, accordingly, see issues and decisions through the prism of their cultural perception. Culture, in that context, may serve as a barrier to international understanding and negotiations due to the fact that various parties see decisions or disputes in different terms. The difference in prevailing strategic preferences of varied states, accordingly, is anchored in the state's early or formative experiences and is impacted to some extent by the state's philosophical, political, cultural, and cognitive features (Johnston, 1995, p. 34). Model 3 ‘Culture as socioeconomic architect’, based on Francis Fukuyama’s book “Trust” who asserts that culture plays a crucial role in determining economic success through one of its traits, ‘sociability’ or ‘social trust’. Societies with ‘high trust’, having large and diverse Multinational Corporations (MNCs), are more likely to achieve economic success than societies with ‘low trust’. Accordingly, Fukuyama suggests that culture determines the level of social trust, which consequently, influences the nature of corporate structures, and which ultimately, affects the economic success of a country. (Mazarr, 1996, p. 180) Model 4 ‘Clash of civilizations’, based on the hypothesis of Samuel Huntington, that the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict 22 will not be primarily economic or ideological, yet cultural. Huntington divides the globe into seven or eight major civilizations- the Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic- Orthodox, Latin American, and the African (Huntington, 1993, p. 25), claiming that future ‘battle lines’ will be drawn along the ‘fault lines’ between these civilizations, and that a clash of civilizations will take over the global affairs (Ibid., p. 22). On this account, culture is the main framework for international relations; it is a primary foundation for state acts and the key cause of global conflict (Mazarr, 1996, p. 181). Mazarr, however, presents what he calls an ‘Alternative Model’ which is based on the writings of Arnold Toynbee, ‘the grandfather of cultural studies’, as he proclaims. Toynbee sees that the technological and economic forces of the modern world are roots for a unifying and homogenizing trend in which culture will decline as a factor influencing global affairs. (Mazarr, 1996., p. 183) Accordingly, this trend recommends that, instead of insisting on cultural differences, it would be more productive to set common goals (based on common interest) that would enable various parties to work closely with common policies to reach these goals. This cooperative atmosphere would lead to better understanding and more respect for cultural differences, which would enhance sharing knowledge and experiences, and thus, boost confidence between different parties. In this case, mankind would unify into one single society. This scenario, if took place, would be most likely the future for humanity, rather than a clash of cultures (Mazarr, 1996., p. 195). If there could be a title to this model, it would be for sure ‘Globalization’. Besides the previous models, this thesis suggests what can be considered a sixth model of the influence of culture on international relations. It is based on Nye’s equation (soft power = culture + political values + foreign policies) where Nye looks at culture as a means of attraction that along with legitimate and moral foreign policies (that stand for the country’s admired values), can generate the utmost of soft power. Soft power, according to him, is in co-opting others to get aligned with the interests and aspirations of a given country. The attractiveness of culture, accordingly, depends on the cultural values of this country, which are better to be universal rather than being narrow. A culture, containing universal values, makes it easier for its policies to establish common ground with others, and thus, generate more soft power (Nye, 2004, p. 11). 23 This thesis, therefore, will be anchored on Nye’s model in dealing with culture (in general) and language (in specific) as an attractive element utilized by Palestinian CD to generate soft power for the Palestinian cause in Turkey. Defining culture as “the set of values and practices that create meaning for a society” (Nye, 2004, p. 11), Nye classifies it into ‘high culture’ which appeals to elites, such as literature, art and education, and ‘popular or low culture’ which is centered on mass entertainment. In his model, he emphasizes the importance of ‘high culture’, quoting the former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, “I can think of no more valuable asset to our country than the friendship of future world leaders who have been educated here.” (Nye, 2004, p. 44). He also values the efficiency of cultural contact, quoting the American writer and diplomat, George Kenan, who considered “cultural contact as a means of combating negative impressions about this country [US] that mark so much of world opinion” and who “willingly trade the entire remaining inventory of political propaganda for the results that could be achieved by such means alone.” (Nye, 2004, p. 45). This thesis, accordingly, will deal with Palestinized Arabic language teaching (ALT) as a crucial part of the Palestinian high culture, that attains sufficient cultural contact with Turkish people and enhances Palestinian CD in Turkey. Favoring high culture on low culture, Nye asserts that academic and scientific exchange greatly served the USA in fostering its soft power during the Cold War. Adding that the attraction and soft power of cultural contacts among elites contributed crucially to the US policy objectives. However, he does not underestimate the role that ‘low culture’ and entertainment play in enhancing soft power, especially in this modern world of mass media. He asserts that the lyrics of some popular music can have important political implications, and the behavior of sports teams or celebrities can efficiently express political messages; besides, visuals often communicate values more effectively than words (Nye, 2004, p. 45-47). Nevertheless, Nye emphasizes that popular culture does not always produce the exact desired outcomes because it is not under the direct control of the government. It even can have contradictory effects on different groups in the same country; for instance, Hollywood movies that attract young Iranians offends Iranian mullahs. Moreover, the instruments of popular culture are non-static because popular 24 culture depends much greater on the image that the country creates through the popularity of its policies (Nye, 2004, p. 52-53). Given the above analysis of high and low cultures, Palestinized ALT, as a high culture practice, will utilize and refer to Palestinian popular culture in its curricula and activities, to get the fruits of both high and low cultures. Finally, the most comprehensive influence of culture on international relations manifests in the report prepared by the Council of the European Union, in 2008. Underlining the importance of cultural interaction in the international community, they state that intercultural dialogue can bridge the gap between individuals and peoples, and can also aid in conflict prevention and reconciliation, especially in politically unstable places. They add that cultural exchanges and cooperation, notably in the audiovisual realm, can aid in the formation of partnership relationships, the strengthening of civil society's place and role, the promotion of democratization and good governance, and the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Besides, culture, as an important component of the knowledge-based economy, has significant economic potential, particularly in terms of cultural and creative industries and sustainable cultural tourism. Also, they assert that Europe's artistic, intellectual, and scientific standing in the world is largely dependent on the dynamism of its cultural creative work and cultural exchanges with third countries. Additionally, they emphasize the benefit of cultural relations between Europe and other parts of the world in developing intercultural communication and establishing common cultural projects. Ultimately, they call upon the union to maintain the promotion of its cultural and linguistic diversity (The Council of the European Union, 2008, p. 2). Derived from the above, this thesis will deal with culture as a social and political trait that is subject to mutual influence, and that develops and transmits through communication, putting more emphasis on language as one of its main elements and as a means of cultural contact and transition. In this regard, conveying the Palestinian culture through ALT will be dealt with as an instrument of attraction and will be considered a major tool of building mutual understanding between Palestine and Turkey on the social and political bases towards reaching the mutual goal of solving the Palestinian cause in line with the universal values of justice and rights restoration. 25 1.4 Cultural Diplomacy CD had not been an attractive concept to both academics and politicians for a long time, but by the new millennium, it began to take attention, especially in the discipline of international relations due to three reasons. Firstly, Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power and the shift of power perception it brought about. This controversial concept established a wide range of debates on the nature of power. Consequently, more attention was paid to culture and cultural exchange for being a major component in Nye’s equation. Secondly, the very rapid spread of globalization accelerated the rise of CD, as the former is not only an economic matter, but also is concerned with issues related to culture. Thirdly, the end of the Cold War turned the global political arena from bipolarity into multipolarity. This development, paved the way for the emergence of the religious conflict [or from a broader perspective ‘the clash of civilizations’], especially with the tendency of states to construct and project their national image and identity. Hence, the role of culture, religion and ethnicity has become crucial regionally and globally (Xu, 2017, pp. 22-24). Nevertheless, the conceptual efforts on CD are still in their preliminary phase. Based on the analysis of both diplomacy and culture, it appears that CD is the combination of both in which culture is promoted through diplomatic instruments, and cultural elements are utilized to facilitate and enhance diplomacy. However, as both terms, culture and diplomacy, are vague and manifold, defining CD is a controversial issue. In this regard, three approaches to CD have been spotted in the report prepared in partnership between the University of Siena, Department of Social, Political and Cognitive Sciences, and the European Union National Institutes for Culture (EUNIC Global). First of which, the ‘public diplomacy approach’, which gives the government the monopoly on both the practice and goals of CD. Secondly, ‘the strategic communications approach’ according to which the government is not necessarily involved, but instead it fosters a specific strategic interest [through arm’s length actors]. Finally, ‘cultural relations approach’, which deems CD as a practice based on dialogue, collaboration and co-production that is detached from a soft power framework, changing attitude and behavior rather than influencing decision-makers (DISPOC-UNISI, 2016). Accordingly, different definitions were given to CD. Based on the understanding of positioning CD as the largest sub-area of public diplomacy Zamorano (2015, p. 1) 26 defines it as “those actions of liaison between governments and people abroad, established specifically through artistic and intellectual resources and activities”. Mark S. (2009, p. 7), moreover, finds CD in “the deployment of a state’s culture in support of its foreign policy goals or diplomacy”. In line with Mark, Louis Bélanger, emphasizing the role of foreign policy, defines CD as “the activities of foreign policy that deal with culture, education, science and, to a degree, technical cooperation; in other words, those that relate to activities of the spirit” (Bélanger, 1994, p. 422). However, Gienow-Hecht and Donfried, paying more attention to public cultural communication, assert that CD is wider than formal diplomacy, which is mainly about government-to-government communication; it contains the communication between both governments and peoples (Gienow-Hecht & Donfried, 2010, p. 13). Moreover, Cummings (2003, p. 1) , in his widespread definition, underlines mutual understanding as a result of this communication, arguing that CD is “the exchange of ideas, information, values, systems, traditions, beliefs, and other aspects of culture, with the intention of fostering mutual understanding”. More comprehensively, Lenczowski, J. expresses CD as a type of public diplomacy and soft power that aims at establishing mutual understanding among nations and their peoples as well as enhancing national security, and protecting and advancing other vital national interests by using information, the exchange of ideas, art, language and other cultural aspects (Lenczowski, 2009, pp. 6-7). Nevertheless, according to the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, CD “may best be described as a course of actions, which are based on and utilize the exchange of ideas, values, traditions and other aspects of culture or identity, whether to strengthen relationships, enhance socio-cultural cooperation, promote national interests and beyond; Cultural diplomacy can be practiced by either the public sector, private sector or civil society.” (ACD, n.d.-c). Accordingly, this thesis previews CD as the combination of some of the aspects of public diplomacy, propaganda, soft power, international cultural relations and intercultural communication. Although these concepts profoundly compose the concept of CD, according to Xu (2017) they are not equivalents or substitutes for it3. 3 Nonetheless, it is a debatable point as there can be two types of CD- formal and informal. Xu’s comparison is mainly with formal CD. This thesis, however, will provide a clearer distinction between formal and informal CD in the end of the discussion. 27 CD, thus, differs from public diplomacy. According to the Dictionary of International Relations Terms- U.S. Department of State, “public diplomacy refers to government-sponsored programs intended to inform or influence public opinion in other countries; its chief instruments are publications, motion pictures, cultural exchanges, radio and television” (U.S. Department of State, 1987, p. 85). Although cultural exchange is one of the chief instruments of public diplomacy, Xu (2017) asserts that CD is not a parallel to public diplomacy. The latter is wider in its focus areas while the former is primarily focused on the cultural field of soft power. Moreover, in the way of functioning, CD depends on the reciprocity of cultural exchanges while public diplomacy favors unilateral communication and mainly addresses the masses. Consequently, albeit both aim at implementing foreign policies, protecting national interests and projecting the national brand, CD is not equivalent to public diplomacy because it is, more specifically, a practice of relations to implement cultural strategies (Xu, 2017, pp. 35-36). Furthermore, the actors involved in public diplomacy are clearly defined –the government is the main player–, but in CD (especially its informal version), the actors are less clearly defined, especially with the involvement of civil society (DISPOC-UNISI, 2016, p. 10). Despite the fact that national branding is the core of CD (Ibid., p. 3), presenting the national image in a managed, considered and strategic manner does not make CD meant to be cultural propaganda. CD differs from propaganda in terms of its functioning; it is mainly based on the principle of dialogue, unlike propaganda which is based on monologue. Effective CD, moreover, is all about building trust (Senkić, 2017, p. 5), yet propaganda is mainly about the deception of the masses4. Based on (Nye, 2010, pp. 123- 124)’s argument, public [and, by definition, cultural] diplomacy that devolves into propaganda not only fails to persuade, but also has the potential to undermine soft power which is mainly based on the understanding of how other people think. For Nye, the most 4 Which makes propaganda an inequivalent to national branding, as well. Although both use simplistic and emotionalized messages to win hearts and minds to a particular way of thinking, both are deliberate attempts at manipulation and both aim at a very specific end outcome, they differ from each other. Whereas propaganda works in an insidious way to develop emotions, nation branding is more open about its aims and the audiences are being manipulated in a fairly transparent way, without forcing the message on them. The net gain of the nation branding manipulation is also different in which if the branding works, it leads to a financial gain for the nation, and the target does not actually lose anything or have to compromise their citizenship, values, beliefs or morals (MacDonald, 2011, p. 23). 28 effective public and CD is two-way, so conducting them smartly requires an understanding of the role of credibility, self-criticism and the role of civil society in generating soft power. Prior to differentiating between CD and cultural soft power, it is important to understand the term ‘soft power’ and how it interacts with CD. Nye, the coiner of the term, asserts that power is the ability to influence others to achieve your desired results. This influence can be conducted in three ways: threats of coercion, inducements and payments5 and attraction through soft power. Accordingly, soft power is about encouraging people to seek the outcomes you want in a way that co-opt rather than coerce them (Nye, 2010, p. 120,121). Therefore, producing soft power with means of CD necessitates producing attraction through mobilizing the values that are expressed in the culture by communicating with the publics and (to some extent) the governments of other countries. And to create attraction through CD, the content of the state’s culture, values and policies must be attractive; otherwise, CD would be counterproductive (Nye, 2010, p. 121). And since the world in contemporary international relations is highlighting cooperation rather than resorting to hard power, CD, by utilizing soft power, has gained a significant role in the international arena. CD, [in the equation of soft power], is not secondary to political or economic diplomacy, but rather functions as a substantial and necessary component of international relations (ACD, n.d.-c). In this regard, there is a slight functional difference between cultural soft power and CD. While cultural soft power is mainly about the power of mobilizing cultural values to gain attraction, CD, in practice, is the activities and programs that are undertaken by state actors [and non-state actors, in regard to informal CD]. In other words, CD is the practice of cultural soft power that offers a path to the dissemination of the state’s cultural values (the core of cultural soft power) (Xu, 2017, p. 34). Addressing the difference between CD and international cultural relations, Lenczowski –based on the argument of a former State Department CD practitioner, Richard T. Arndt, who stated that cultural relations grow naturally through non- governmental means including the transactions of trade and tourism, student flows, 5 Nye asserts that threats of coercion are used with inducements and payments in accordance to the well- known concept of stick and carrot. 29 communications, book circulation, migration, media access, inter-marriage and millions of daily cross-cultural encounters– suggests that CD can take place, when formal diplomats, serving national governments, try to shape and channel this natural flow to advance national interests (Lenczowski, 2009, p. 5). However, this suggestion does not discard non-state actors as cultural diplomats. Thus, it is possible to somehow consider explorers, travelers, traders, teachers, artists and anyone interacts with different cultures as ‘informal cultural diplomats’ serving the state’s national interests (ACD, n.d.-c). Nevertheless, practicing CD is taken to be distinct from participating in international cultural relations. CD, on one hand, is always subject to political goals and its programs are directly undertaken in support of the state’s foreign policy objectives6, which include the achievement of mutual understanding and cooperation with other states for mutual benefits. This complexity of CD with its enormous measures makes conducting it more difficult as it relatively takes a longer time to win the hearts and minds of others. On the other hand, international cultural relations are easier to be established. They are more spontaneous as the actions of their actors could be casual or informal with no specific purpose (Xu, 2017, pp. 37-38). Moreover, CD is not equivalent to intercultural communication. Intercultural communication is “a form of communication that aims to share information across different cultures and social groups. It is used to describe the broad range of communication processes and problems that naturally appear within an organization or social context made up of individuals from different religious, social, ethnic, and educational backgrounds” (Allwood, 1985, p. 3). Therefore, it could be conducted on a public basis, primarily aiming to understand how people from different countries and cultures act and communicate. However, [formal] CD is in the first place conducted by the government, its agencies or other organizations authorized by the state, and its function goes beyond understanding other cultures and their people’s behaviors (Xu, 2017, p. 39). All in all, this thesis agrees with Xu (2017) about considering public diplomacy, CD, international cultural relations and intercultural communication components of the ‘macro’ cultural soft power. However, it disagrees with her assumption that CD falls in 6 Arndt (2005, p. 18) argues that [informal] CD can more comprehensively go for the national interest [and beyond]. 30 the same category with public diplomacy regarding practicians, who according to her are mainly officials of the state or organizations authorized by the state. Within this framework, this thesis asserts that CD, in regard to actors, overlaps with international cultural relations and intercultural communication as it can also be a matter of the state and its agencies, and\or the non-governmental sector (Xu, 2017, p. 39-40). On that account, this thesis finds it significant to differentiate between formal and informal CD. CD in practice can overlap with international cultural relations and intercultural communication regarding the practitioners [or actors] when they directly or indirectly serve the national interest. For more illustration, formal CD, on one hand, can be whether purely state-sponsored (serving foreign policy and is undertaken by state officials), or semi-independent, (channeled by arm’s length institutes, such as British Council and Yunus Emre Institute and can serve both foreign policy and/or –more broadly– national interests.) informal CD, on the other hand, has no direct connection to the state and its foreign policy, and is channeled by independent entities (e.g., academic institutions, educational or cultural centers, and NGOs) or individuals (e.g., artists, professionals, academics, athletes, etc.) who directly or indirectly serve the national interests. Table 1: Types of CD Type Actors Target Formal State-sponsored State officials Foreign policy Semi-independent Arm’s length institutes (e.g., British Council) Foreign policy and national interests Informal Independent bodies National interests and beyond 31 1.5 Cultural Diplomacy in Practice Just like general diplomacy, CD as a practice has been conducted for ages. This manifested in several examples of promoting national culture abroad as a means of foreign policy to achieve national interest. Across human history, people have used culture to display themselves, assert their power and understand others. According to Arndt (2005), since the 3rd millennium BC, CD –which meant as a set of rituals, ceremonies, chants, dance and language– has been a norm and basis of cooperation between large groups. For instance, The Roman Republic used to practice CD by inviting the sons of foreign ‘friendly kings’ to receive education in Rome. Also, the Sufi mystics of the early Ottoman Empire, spreading ascetic and tolerant messages across boundaries, were another example (Donelli, 2019, p. 7). Besides, the establishment of trade routes and the exchange of information and gifts between traders and government representatives can be considered an early example of CD (ACD, n.d.-c). Nonetheless, CD was not institutionalized as an integral part of diplomatic activity until the late 19th century when specialized cultural diplomatic institutions, such as the Alliance Française (1883)7 and Società Dante Alighieri (1889)8 were established to promote their own cultures all around the world. The engagement in CD activities increased even more during the so-called ‘cultural war’ between the USA and USSR due to the Cold War in which culture was an axis of propaganda (Donelli, 2019). Part of that was the suggestion of Adam Clayton Powell Jr., that instead of sending symphonies and ballet groups abroad, the US should send jazz musicians to allow the world to see “the real Americana”9 (ACD, n.d.-b). However, albeit countries such as France have used the term since the late 19th century, CD was not part of the common parlance in the majority 7 For more than a century, the Alliance Française in Paris has been disseminating the French language and Francophone culture. It is today the largest cultural network in the world, with 1,040 locations in 136 countries. Every year, 450,000 individuals of all ages join them to study French, and over 6 million people visit their cultural events (ACD, n.d.-a). 8 The Dante Alighieri Society exists solely to encourage the study of Italian language and culture around the world (ACD, n.d.-a). 9 The Jazz Ambassador tours lasted several weeks and featured some of the best jazz musicians in the United States, including Dizzie Gillespie (1956), Louis Armstrong (1961), and Benny Goodman (1962). From Cairo streets to the heart of the USSR, American Jazz Ambassadors tried to show that their country was far from 'culturally barbaric' as Soviet propaganda depicted it then (ACD, n.d.-b). 32 of other countries until the 1990s (Donelli, 2019, p. 7). Since that time, the advancement in information and communication technology –making the world a small village–, has enabled people from different backgrounds to have greater access to each other. Hence, the attention towards CD has grown even more (ACD, n.d.-c). The growing attention towards CD is derived from its value on different levels. Globally, the value of CD lies in its crucial role in enhancing respect and recognition of cultural diversity and heritage, encouraging global intercultural dialogue, inculcating values of justice, equality and interdependence, reinforcing the protection of human rights, and fostering peace and stability all over the globe. (ACD, n.d.-c) At the international level, regarding states interests, CD, by increasing understanding and establishing trust, obscures legitimate differences in perspective, as it allows diverse countries and cultures to discover the common values they share, and thus, establish common ground (Schneider, 2006, p. 195). This common ground, therefore, enables countries to combat stereotypes, develop mutual understanding and advance national reputation and relationships across borders (Donelli, 2019, p. 8). In that context, the Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy of The U.S. Department of State asserts in detail the distinctive significance of CD in advancing foreign policy and national interests. According to them, CD is pivotal in building long- term relationships with peoples beyond changes in governments; reaching influential members of foreign societies who cannot be reached through formal diplomatic paths; generating a good agenda for cooperation despite differences in policy; establishing a neutral platform for people-to-people interaction; serving as a flexible and universally acceptable vehicle for rapprochement with countries where diplomatic relations have been tense or nonexistent; reacquainting with countries where diplomatic relations have been strained or absent; lowering language barriers to reach out to a wide range of people, especially the youth and non-elites; actively supporting the advancement of civil society; making own citizens acquainted with the values and sensitivities of other societies in order to avoid gaffes and missteps; counterbalancing misunderstanding, hatred and terrorism; and eventually making openness and tolerance to prevail in internal foreign cultural debates (U.S. Department of State- ACCD, 2005). 33 To reach those ends, CD possesses several means with numerous activities. Although every element of culture is possible to be used in CD, Lenczowski lists the most regularly and intensively employed instruments as well as their various activities. They are both of high and low cultures, as follow: The arts (including the performing arts: theater, film, music and ballet, the fine arts: painting and sculpturing, and ‘sui generis’ art: architecture.), exhibitions (which harness a variety of other elements of culture, such as science, technology, folk and ethnic culture, commercial products, and the activities of various professions, including charitable work, as well as hobbies), exchanges (mainly, educational, scientific, and artistic; and additionally, professional, labor, sports, youth, and religious), educational programs (including establishing universities across borders, sponsoring studying programs related to the country, dispatching teachers, professors and experts, and sponsoring conferences and scholarships from and to the country), literature (through the distribution of books and the establishment of libraries abroad), language teaching, broadcasting (including radio, TV and related multimedia), gifts, listening and according respect (through think tanks that attempt to understand others’ perspectives to establish common grounds), promotion of ideas (through the previous cultural instruments which can be considered vehicles or media for the transmission of cultural categories), promotion of social policy, history, and religious diplomacy (Lenczowski, 2009, pp. 12- 19). Since CD is about long-term engagement, conducting its activities cannot be just about supporting foreign policy, but it has to go beyond, to national interests and even further. Therefore, entities responsible for the implementation of the activities related to CD usually work based on the arm’s length concept. Hence, they work away from the political-partisan interventions of the central government, for the sake of avoiding the instrumentalization of culture which most often negatively affect the outcomes of CD and its credibility (Schneider, 2006, p. 194; Mark S., 2009, p. 10). Accordingly, several countries adopt this model by sponsoring autonomous agencies, councils and programs to implement most of their CD activities. For instance, UK’s British Council, China’s Confucius Institute, Turkey’s Yunus Emre Institute, US’s Fulbright Program and EU’s Erasmus+ Program are government-sponsored institutions and programs that follow this model; 34 • British Council is on the ground in over a hundred countries, working each year with millions of people, connecting them with the UK by sharing the British culture and the UK’s most attractive asserts- English, the arts, education, lifestyle and organizing society (ACD, n.d.-a). The council aims at furthering any charitable purposes for the public benefit that will firstly promote cultural relationships and understanding between the citizens of the UK and the peoples of other countries; secondly, widen knowledge about the United Kingdom; thirdly, develop the level of English language; fourthly, encourage cooperation between the United Kingdom and other countries on cultural, scientific, technological, and other educational bases (The British Council, 2011, p. 2). • Confucius Institutes are public educational partnerships between colleges and universities in China and their counterparts in other countries. They are overseen by Hanban (Office of Chinese Language Council International) in Beijing, which is affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Education (USGAO, 2019, p. 3). According to Hanban website, there are 541 institutes in 5 continents as of January 2021. The institutes’ main scope of work is to provide people all over the world with the opportunity to learn the Chinese language and culture, to establish a platform for cultural exchange between China and the globe, and be a bridge that reinforces friendship and cooperation between China and the rest of the world (Hanban, 2014). • Yunus Emre is an Institution affiliated with the Yunus Emre Foundation which was founded in 2007 to promote Turkey, the Turkish language, as well as the Turkish history, culture and art, to improve friendship between Turkey and the rest of the world and increase cultural exchange between Turkey and other countries. Yunus Emre Institute, therefore, started working in 2009, conducting several activities to promote Turkish culture and art, and represent Turkey in national and international events. As of January 2021, the institute has more than 58 cultural centers abroad (Yunus Emre Institute, 2020). • Fulbright Program is a US government-sponsored scholarship program established in 1946. It offers grants to US citizens to go abroad and non-US citizens to come to the US to study, teach and conduct research. Its primary objectives are to foster mutual understanding between the US and partner nations, share knowledge across 35 communities, and improve lives around the world. The program is active in more than 160 countries with more than 390,000 students, scholars, teachers, artists and scientists benefited from it since its establishment. Lindsey Liles, Fulbright ETA to Brazil highlights the core value of the program, asserting that finding common ground with people from various cultures, languages, and lifestyles is, above all, the heart of the Fulbright Program. (U.S. Department of State- ECA, n.d.) • ERASMUS +: The EU programme for education, training, youth and sport, which started in 2014, is an extension to the 1987-founded Erasmus student exchange program. With an overall budget of €14.7 billion, and more than 4 million mobility opportunities, including around 2 million higher education students, around 650,000 vocational education and training students, and 800,000 staff (lectures, teachers, trainers, education staff and youth workers), the program aims to encourage young people to take part in Europe democracy; support innovation, cooperation and reform; reduce unemployment, especially among young people; and promote cooperation and mobility between EU and partner countries. The program, thus, offers millions of Europeans to study, volunteer, train or gain professional experience abroad, funds sports activities, offers opportunities for participants to study worldwide, and supports language learning for all participants (EC, 2020, p. 1). Although such entities, having an arm’s length relationship with the state, are usually the main actors of CD, some other stakeholders are engaged in the process (DISPOC-UNISI, 2016, p. 3). Non-state actors have become significant players in CD activities, especially NGOs and individuals who, through wealth or new technologies, influence the international arena. Activists, artivists, advocacy groups, and o