The role played by Public and Cultural Diplomacy in maintaining the UK’s position in the world

How important is the role played by public and cultural diplomacy in maintaining the UK’s position in the world?

The UK’s public and cultural diplomacy  is an ambitious work in progress which needs some improvements. The UK has interests to pursue and to protect and a position to maintain but may need to learn from others. Public and cultural diplomacy are useful tools in the armoury in order to develop strategies and put them in place so that they can work to achieve these aims. Since the sun set on the Empire the narrative has been about managing diminishing resources as well as possible. Managing resources at home and seeking them abroad and doing these tasks well.

The ‘deep, deep sleep of England from which I sometimes fear that we shall never wake till we are jerked out of it by the roar of bombs.’ So wrote George Orwell of the state of  ‘England’. Along the way it has become clear as the diplomatic crystal that change and transformation of the existing arrangements is fundamental. The ‘decolonising of the mind of accepted truths and received  wisdom’ (Mark Curtis,p323, Unpeople) is required to help rein in the excesses. It is in our  interest at this time to liberate and self-educate with this end in mind.

In this essay I aim to explore the ways that public and cultural diplomacy contribute to the maintenance costs of keeping Britannia afloat on the high seas. I will also look at the relative importance of the UK and how this is managed.

Public diplomacy has taken the mantle of responsibility for what was propaganda. The UK has had an ‘exceptional’ position in the world from the days of Empire to the Commonwealth. This has been helped by a strategic approach, one of Wilton Park Conferences, Diplomacy Reviews, diplomacy boards and many examples of modern fusion. Whilst it is good that there is public discourse of public diplomacy the last thing our Westminster elite want is for the public to start dictating policy through new channels of communication. This is a threat to the established elite, the educated elites. After all ‘they’ know what is best for all of us and ‘they’ know how to put on a show with a bit of pomp and circumstance. As Bill Hicks might have  said, ‘Go back to bed (you Brits) your ‘Homes are safe’.

The British Council (BC)  is an excellent vehicle for the UK’s image abroad. It has an unrivalled collection of art in its vaults that can be transported around the world on a constant mission of attracting the sympathetic traveller to our shores. There are over 960 original works in the collection. (The British Collection, 1984) It is a great collection of representative art from the UK. Artists are often prepared to give their work to the BC. ‘The principle aim of the British Council is to promote overseas an enduring understanding and appreciation of UK through cultural, educational and technical cooperation’. (p9, BC)

And we have so many ways to show the world that we are good at putting on events. A royal wedding this year, followed next year by the Diamond Jubilee  then the Olympics. Meanwhile most of us continue to look at the rising price of a loaf of bread and the cost of a litre of petrol .

Public Diplomacy was once propaganda but as the broadcaster Ed Murrow once said ‘Truth is the best propaganda’.

The independence of the BBC World Service is understood and it is needed to maintain the UK’s reputation. This took a knock doing the Iraq WMD[1] claims that lead to the Iraq war and involved the BBC itself in a prime example of public diplomacy in action.

‘Always it is important to keep the end purpose clear’ John Lenczowski (2007)

To harness and influence create a positive view of the UK and its people, culture, policies to encourage more cooperation and to change the policies of others, and other nations and to impact their influence to bring about ‘political and cultural influence in foreign lands.’(J.Michael Waller, 2007).

The enemy of clear language is insincerity. All issues are political and politics is a mass of lies evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.

So with this in mind we seek to spread the word and image of the UK abroad through the British Council and the BBC World Service.

Recent rules on immigration have done harm to this countries cultural perceptions. Recently arts organisations in London have been forced to  cancel performances by artists who have been caught in the clampdown on immigration since the Coalition government started. A staggering 42% of groups polled by the GLA in March 2011 said that changes to the immigration system had affected their ability to put on performances by foreign artists. Kristin Ostling, Polina Semionora and Huang Xu have all suffered because of the stupidity of a lack of joined-up government. Temporary visas refused for artists engaged in cultural diplomacy that affects the way we see the US, Russia and China and affect the way artists will view the UK. Lord Clancarty said that “artists visiting Britain on temporary basis is not an immigration issue but about cultural exchange and it is our worldwide reputation for this which is being damaged. (21.3.2011, Rob Parsons, Evening Standard)

To Bismarck public diplomacy was about ‘manipulating the media to communicate to a public audience in a one directional way about Germany’s foreign policy’. Succesful PD today is all about more sophisticated forms of inter-cultural communication. (Pigman, 2010)

Presenting the UK as modern and vibrant and as a potential sports hub to the world is very much a part of the new message for the world. London has a strong image all ready. (Pigman,p127) Many previous Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries have helped this aim in many ways by selling the UK abroad with the help of investment, tourism and trade using access to the sporting contests of the world.  The Olympics 2012 is aiming to create a sporting legacy for the UK.

But managing cultural diplomacy is a difficult process which can be upset by Fatwas and teddy bears. But then it can be improved  by  sending the head of state and carefully selected members of that family to do some diplomatic carpentry.

In 2007 the Queen went to Kentucky to watch the races with President Bush and received some gifts. The exchanging of gifts being seen as important and symbolic, and of culturally significance.

In cultural terms in the arts it is sometimes difficult to know what works effectively. The investment cannot always be so clearly connected to outcomes in PD.

Sports is a binding force for change ‘a mediation of the estrangement between peoples’, the British have had huge impact in the origins of sporting cultural diplomacy in the world. To list a few that the UK helped create but may not have any control over any more there is FIFA, the ICC, International Rugby and the International Tennis Federation. But this does sometimes throw up awkward international diplomacy situations such as the recent England cricket tour of Zimbabwe which was called into question and lead to England's withdrawal from the proposed tour.

The Church of England’s mediating role is a useful cultural peace-making role. In as much as diplomacy has an important role in reducing the possibility of war, conflict, in reducing poverty and inequality. More cultural exchanges are needed but preferably without the involvement of the government. Independence is key to these successful enterprises. When the FCO[2] tries to take the credit the public and cultural diplomacy message stalls.

 As a young diplomat Carne Ross had a mission to show that big structural organisations do not have all the solutions or the ability to help the smaller state. Not all politics is local. But some would disagree. To Carne Ross the ‘discourse of diplomacy has to be returned to earth’ to get the pretentious and confused terminologies out of the way.

It is better to see what that quality of homogenisation in the world does for PD.

As Ross says ‘there is nothing special about diplomacy. It requires no particular genius to practise, The doors of (public) diplomacy are closed in part to obscure this truth’. ( Carne Ross, 2007)

Carne Ross points out that diplomats were afraid of the consequences of the Freedom of Information Act. To help improve PD in maintaining itself it should be required that UK ambassadors are accountable and have to address an annual parliamentary PD committee.

Ross suggests the abolition of the top cadre of diplomat altogether because 1) their ‘position reaffirms the separate nature of diplomacy and international relations when they are inextricably linked’( Ross p209). 2) Diplomatists are generalists such that often scientific ideas are beyond diplomats comprehension.

3) The wishes and needs of a country are needlessly bound up in one diplomatic embassy and ambassador which is often too much centralised power centred in one. 4) Promoting multiple links at multiple levels between. 5) Diplomats on the ground are no good at spotting seismic shifts on the ground as happened in Tehran in 1979 under the Shah and  concerning the rise of Ahmadinejad in Iran in 2005. 6) The absurd unbowed allegiance to the mystique of diplomacy.

7) Diplomacy reaffirms the state centric realist way of thinking about international relations. For example specialists thrashed out an agreed list of banned exports to Iraq, banned substances which diplomats could not, at the time, agree on.

8) The amorality of diplomacy is an issue. The moral sensibility tends to go out of the window at times. State morality needs some back bone to it.

9) In Europe embassies look more like bus terminals delivering a service. This is no bad thing but not very British so far

10) The culture of self-serving elitism and fake omnipotence of the world’s diplomats creates the illusion that they are in control. ‘The pact of irresponsibility must end’ (Carne Ross).

Corporations all have diplomatic missions. Being effective in promoting labour rights or environmental standards requires coalitions of actors in the private sector, civil society, communicating in concert to be effective,

NGO Global Witness ran a very effective campaign on “conflict diamonds” and its role is still outside the mainstream  but  is still valid and important.

Cutural diplomacy is separate and distinctive from the tasks of embassies.

The British Council (BC) is the UK’s  “main vehicle for cultural relations with other countries”(Juergen Kleiner, 2010)

We have the advantage of a language that is international which makes some cultural work easier.

The new diplomacy is public diplomacy (Rana, 2005) It is all about influencing other publics or the ‘elite opinion of another country’.

To the UK government and its diplomacy their situation is not so different to other nations when it comes to news and its effect on diplomacy. [3]

It was Mrs Thatcher that brought in changes for the way that diplomats work abroad and made the FCO become more strategic in its PD and Cultural diplomacy.  The ‘BFO and other depts. publish detailed documents on policy goals and actual performances in meeting predetermined targets which are quantified and enumerated.’[4]

Why should consular work involve a consul/ambassador when a computer could do the job?( Rana 2005) Just simply making updated changes to free up the important crisis time management would be beneficial. Routine commercial work is seldom done by the ambassador. Embassies leave a lasting impression, making them as accessible as high street banks could help with customer satisfaction and might help improve the UK’s reputation for bureaucratic efficiency.

‘The priveliged being of the future is the travel agent’ Nancy Mitford.

 The Plowden report of 1964, Margaret Thatcher’s diplomatic changes and the Coles report of 2005 have helped to move the FCO on in their thinking about their work home and abroad. PD is about reaching out to publics, speaking to organisations and universities and remaining in contact with opinion leaders. PD is thus about making diplomats accessible. Strategy is vital.

The era of Pax Britannica quickly made way for Pax Americana and the emancipation and change wrought by the Commonwealth has some significant role in the way things are done. ‘The image of diplomats as licensed spies’  has changed. There are now 3000 NGO’s on the world stage in 2008 there were 750 NGO’s at the WTO in Geneva to ‘advise, inform, lobby and observe’.

PD and the FCO: ‘No other agency private or official is in a better position to cultivate cross cultural skills and long term relationships and in an overall view of the situation.’ (p16, Melissen)

The bombing of a consulate in 2003 lead to changes. Consul General Roger Short and  others lead to an increased commitment to security in posts abroad and an increase to the security budget of £50 million.

It was discovered that 75% of UK travellers  go to EU to the North America. Other less stable destinations create a need for the FCO to help their ‘subjects’ abroad. Frameworks need to be in place to help deliver a range of assistance to travellers. The demand for consular services due to increased trips abroad rose from 55 million in 1999/2000 to 70 million 2004/5 with about 86,000 cases for consuls to manage. This requires the flexibility of 1800 foreign office staff in 259 embassies. (Dickie, 2008) It is a formidable team to maintain. There are a further 15 million Britons living and working abroad ( (Dickie, 2008)

With the closing down of posts the Honorary Consul is being revived.  The sharing of consular facilities, staff and functions and there is scope for efficiency in times of crisis. Closer partnerships have developed with the private sector.  After 9/11 and the Bali bomb FCO communications had to be overhauled so that anxious parents could be helped and advised.

Added to the role of task needed on the international stage are: forging partnerships, managing networks, shaping opinions, building coalitions, helping to protect the earth's resources, to compete, to invest and to attract investment.

How can you project yourself abroad if you have no significance in power terms?

The diplomat has a rucksack and blackberry, he/she is, or should  be, a ‘Street wise lobbyist’ (p150,Copeland, 2009) Battling for relevancy in a fast paced world.

Cultural relations enrich experience and enlarge understanding. But how measurable are they. ‘Cool Britannia’ in the 1990’s created a few good covers and was useful on popular cultural level but did it influence hearts and minds abroad. Did it make them want to visit Manchester? I doubt it somehow.

Gradually diplomats are changing as Hocking said from being ‘gatekeepers’ to being ‘boundary spanners’ who have cross culturally attuned advocacy skills. Measuring up in skills terms with 6 elements required in their armoury: dynamism, indispensability, professionalism, adaptability, commitment and expertise.

These days the UK is a lesser player on the world stage. Process has made way for outcome. Sometimes the rationale for keeping an embassy may not be realistic to UK goals.

The UK has many challenges in the face of the dominance of the US and forces outside of its control.  Nancy Snow’s 7 point plan for international change  is a useful guide as to where PD should be working on improving its emphasis.

The UK diplomacy should aim to achieve something like Snow’s vision of ‘a global civic society that values genuine democracy’. (Snow p143)

Some refocusing of the foreign office is required. (Gerard Russell). London is the capital of dissidents. The FCO could do with talking and comparing notes with such emigres where they do not have the knowledge on the ground. It would be useful to have the Foreign Secretary more accountable in relation to his conversations with foreign persons that are part of diasporas.

Cameron is changing what UK  plc does by making diplomacy work as if it were touting for business constantly. The Coalition have (to date) improved relations and connections with European partners France, Germany and  the Netherlands.

In the words of Sir Francis Bacon 1620 we would do well to remember ‘ it is well to observe the force, virtue and consequences of discovery’. By bearing this in mind PD in the UK can prosper as well by following the advice of Carne Ross and Nancy Snow.

Bibliography

Branigan, Tania, ‘Cameron goes to China’, The Guardian, Nov. 8^th, 2011

Parsons, Rob. ‘Denying artists visas ‘is threat to London’s cultural reputation’, Evening Standard, March 21^st, 2011

Scott, Biljana. ‘A clash of professional cultures: The David Kelly Affair, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy,

Finn, H. K. (2003) ‘The case for Cultural Diplomacy’, Foreign Affairs Vol 82, No. 6.

The British Council Collection, (1984) British Council, London

Waller, J.Michael, (2007) The Public Diplomacy Reader, The Institute of World Politics Press, Washington DC

Embassy of Germany website

Pigman, G.A. (2010) Contemporary Diplomacy, Polity Press, UK

Ross, Carne. (2007) Independent Diplomat, C.Hurst & Co, UK

Kleiner, J. (2010) Diplomatic Practice, World Scientific Publ Co, Singapore

Rana. K.S, (2005) The 21^st Century Ambassador, OUP, Oxford

Barston, R.P. (2006) Modern Diplomacy,  Pearson Education Ltd

Hamilton, K & Langhorne, R (2011) The Practice of Diplomacy, Routledge

Dickie, J. (2008) The British Consul, Columbia University Press, USA

http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/pmt

Garton Ash, T. (2004) Free World, Allen Lane

Melissen, J. (1999) Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, Macmillan Press

Leguey-Feilleux, J.R. (2009) The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Lynne Rienner Publ, Colorado

Copeland, Daryl. (2009) Guerilla Diplomacy, Lynne Reiner, Colorado

Rana, K.S. & Kurbalija, J (2007) Foreign Ministries, Diplo Foundation, Malta

Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (2004) Diplo Foundation, Malta

Snow, Nancy (2010) Propaganda Inc, Seven Stories Press

Public and Cultural  Diplomacy module lecture notes

Lord Carter of Coles Report, 2005

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/12_december/15/carter.shtml

Curtis, Mark (1995) The Ambiguities of Power, Zed Books

Roy, A. (2004) The Chequebook and the cruise missile, Harper Perennial, London

Curtis, Mark (2004) Unpeople, Verso, London http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/12_december/15/carter.shtml

---

[1] Weapons of Mass Destruction [2] Foreign and Commonwealth Office [3] ‘CNN is the enemy of today’s ambassador’[4] Embassies always try to foster direct contact with the host country’s public. (footnote: distributing magazines, borchures, organize elctures and seminars, set up friendship associations and give interviews to the media. Plus the addition of the internet.

'Everybodys worried about World War 3': Joseph Nye and Okinawa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trO1RY3KC44

Goin' back down to Okinawa
Sorry, baby, but I can't take you
You better stay at home in California
There's nothing over there that you can do


Goin' back down to Okinawa
Ain't gonna do me like you've done before
They treat me like a king down in Okinawa
And I may never come back no more


It's just an island floating in the sun
Everybody is having so much fun
Pretty mamas laying in the sand
Sure to know how to treat your man
Okinawian baby, won't you come by me ?
Sun going down in the China Sea
Making love on the beach all night
Okinawa moon is shining so bright


Folks in Okinawa sure have fun
They get together when the working day is done
Drinking cheap wine. and making romance
While some old man's doing the Okina dance


Back in the days of World War II
Fought against the Japanese like me and you
Everybody's worried âbout World War III
Okinawa's just the place where I'm gonna be


Going back to Okinawa
Sorry, but I can't take you
Never coming back no more, baby
Ry Cooder, Going Back to Okinawa [ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/r/ry_cooder/going_back_to_okinawa.html ]

In 1995 Joseph Nye produced a strategic  document for the East-Asia Pacific region for President Clinton. This proposed a halt to former President G.H.Bush's measured troop reductions and whacked up the troop numbers to 100,000 ( similar to Cold War numbers) in Japan and South Korea with those countries expected to contribute from their own forces. This was to enable, in Nye's words, a place at the Asian table and 'to protect our interests'. Okinawa was one of these places where troop numbers would be sustained at high levels (at between 30,000 to 50,000). The Governor of Okinawa, Ota Masahide, rightly took exception to this arrogant assumption of ownership as if it was a US fiefdom.  The residents of Okinawa having been humiliated in 1952  when mainland Japan offered the island as a base in return for its sovereignty had hoped for a withdrawal of troop numbers. Months later protests reached fever pitch with the news of  US military personnel inflicting a vicious sexual assault on a pre-teen girl. In 1996 Clinton agreed to move the marines out of Futenma whilst the construction of another base was completed. However, the mainland Japanese authorities offered the US a harbour port with a coral reef of sensitive environmental importance. To the US the coral was a nuisance and they had tried to blow it up previously. Money not defence became the driving force. It is ironic that Japan's first instinct after reconstruction was to make sure that economics replaced an absent military strength and that this would in turn help in terms of leveraging a better position and more equal status with the US. (G.Austin & S.Harris,2001) Community leaders decried the Japanese and US willingness to act as if it were Okinawa's drug dealer. 'It is as if the Japanese government has made Okinawa a drug addict, and the US government takes full advantage of the addiction, in order to maintain its military presence'. (Miyazato Seigen) The proposed development was estimated to cost $16 billion and it has been keenly contested at every stage by the Okinawans. In  2008 Nye returned to the fray in style by saying that any changes to his proposals would be seen as that scarily worn-out old chestnut (my words); 'anti-american'.

In Japan the ruling Democratic Party which had won in 2009 caved in and morphed into a pale copy of the previous Liberal Democrat government effectively pledging blind allegiance to Washington. Obama was happy to give Prime Minister Kan a photo shoot at the Toronto G20 and so was Kan. The outcome has the warming effect of giving the US hawks Japans highly effective 240,000 forces under its broad wings. The new Henoko base is thus a trivial arrangement in comparison but not to Okinawans. In early 2010  90,000 islanders protested demanding the closure of Futenma and the halting of work on the proposed base at Futenma. In one poll 84% opposed the new base.

Japan is effectively a client state of the US; 'One that enjoys the formal trappings of a Westphalian sovereignty and independence, and is therefore neither a colony nor a puppet state.' (McCormack)Japan has ended up paying the US for the privelige of letting them occupy Okinawa and dominating the Meiji era elite who have ruled Japan. Somehow because of their submissiveness to the US the Japanese have signed up to the G.W.Bush's globally created 'war on terror' even though Islam is and never has been a threat to Japan. Meanwhile Japan has no independent foreign policy of its own and the protests in Henoko continue.

Meanwhile, China having got used to 6 decades of neighbourly stability, have started to be concerned with the US presence in Japan. Senior Chinese leaders have often voiced their opposition to the idea of foreign military occupation such as in Okinawa. The US-Japan alliance effectively dictates how China and Japan see each other in military terms. Japan in turn has not been afraid to stand up to China and has often voiced its concerns over China's 'missile diplomacy' with Taiwan and its objections to China's nuclear testing. (G. Austin & S.Harris, 2001)

In conclusion it is evident that there is a total absence of public diplomacy or soft power initiatives alongside Nye's diktats and very little noticeable cultural diplomatic effort to win the Okinawans over. One wonders what exactly Joseph Nye would call his strategic aims in academic terms but they are in fact unmistakeably Neo-Con Imperialist in my view.  'Over exposure with regard to the internal affairs of another country.... is liable to produce an unintended public diplomacy consequence which can be corrosive to the legitimacy of the actors.'
(http://www.blogger.com/postedit.gblogID=3691872501256573949&postID=1339426805892855573) 
This quote referred in its original form to the relationship between Pakistan and the US and it should act as pre-cautionary principle. The situation in Okinawa discredits both actors; Japan and the US .

'The successful diplomat is part analyst, part advocate, part policy-maker and part communications strategist.' http://www.blogger.com/postedit.gblogID=3691872501256573949&postID=1339426805892855573
The 'successful diplomat' across the region covered by Nye's strategic document will struggle to persuade even in 'soft' terms that there is anything in it of comfort to a Ryukyuan fisherman whose village, harbour and local atoll is about to be bombed and filled in with concrete in the interests of US hegemony in the Far East. In this respect 90,000 protesting Okinawans could make life very hard for the US on the beach when the moon shines bright. Never mind World War Three!

It would also help if the Japanese government reviewed its policy of following the US on the 'war on terror' which serves no purpose for Japan in the short term but could do real damage to it in the long term in Islamic countries where their public and cultural diplomacy has up until now been valued or been seen as neutral. 'The ecology of public diplomacy can be characterised as a series of contests of competitive credibility, as Joseph Nye put it, where success is measured by ‘whose story wins’.' (1)Or alternatively, and in simple layman terms, whose strategic document is pro-American enough to win.
Gavan McCormack 'Obama v Okinawa' New Left Review Issue 64 July/Aug 2010
G. Austin  & S. Harris, (2001) Japan and Greater China, C. Hurst & Co, London
Open University:
(1)http://www.blogger.com/postedit.gblogID=3691872501256573949&postID=1339426805892855573  

Diplomacy & Pre-texts to War

Lord Palmerston was not a popular Foreign Secretary with the establishment.  Though he was very popular with rest of the country and had lofty ideas of how England should 'with the strong arm of England' defend its citizenry 'against injustice and wrong'. He meant a certain kind of citizen or subject. Queen Victoria was not keen on his style of public diplomacy at all. He was often doing things without telling Her Majesty. He ignored her wishes, and other ministers, and gave her lectures about his grand liberal causes.

At one point he got involved with the case of a well-to-do moneylender by the name of David 'Don' Pacifico, a Gibraltarian Jewish gentleman who had his house burnt down by an allegedly anti-moneylender/anti-semitic mob in Athens in 1847. Greece has had problems with moneylenders and external interference ever since.

His ensuing claim for compensation was somewhat exaggerated and the Greek government refused to pay him a farthing. The Foreign Secretary took up the case of the wealthy money-lender as a loyal subject of a Crown colony. He initiated four days of parliamentary time to discuss the situation. Palmerston delivered a famous five-hour speech in which he sought to vindicate not only his claims on the Greek government for Don Pacifico, but his entire administration of foreign affairs.

Palmerston won the vote but was later censured in the House of Lords. As Foreign Secretary, without consulting the Queen,  he deployed the navy to seize Greek boats and blockaded the main port of Athens at Piraeus to force payment from the government. In so doing he upset the French who had brokered a diplomatic deal to settle the matter and the Russians who were co-guarantors of the newly independent Greek state.  At one point during the crisis the French ambassador left London in disgust.

The blockade lasted two months and severely damaged the reputation of puppet King Otto of Greece. It also deeply annoyed and embarrassed Queen Victoria and the Prime Minister of the day Lord John Russell.  Eighteen months after this debacle Palmerston is given his marching orders and is sacked from office after starting another of his public diplomatic efforts in supporting Louis Napoleon's coup in France without the full approval of  his Prime Minister and his Queen. He was sacked for "violations of prudence and decorum".

Palmerston was the quintessential gunboat diplomatist. He had also made the Chinese sign the Treaty of Nanking after defeating them in the First Opium War of 1842. This treaty opened up 5 Chinese ports to the ubiquitous 'free trade' system of the time. Opium was the highest valued commodity of its day in the 19th century and the Chinese were forced to buy it in exchange for Chinese silk and tea for the UK market. In 1856 Chinese officials boarded a British colonial registered boat called the Arrow suspected of acts of piracy. It was this pre-text that gave Palmerston the casus belli for another war for his own brand of free trade. This sparked off another round of sabre rattling and gunboat diplomacy by Palmerston and the start of the Second Opium War which was no more than a ruse to impose further trade agreements with the Chinese. The Chinese soon realised that the Arrow incident had provided the international pre-text to imposing Imperialist solutions without reference to justice or honour. (1) The Chinese have not forgotten to teach each generation afterwards about these humiliations inflicted on them by Western Imperialists forces and powers.

Palmerston represented a gradual change of diplomatic style which can be seen developing. He is the 'Old Public Diplomacy' morphing into the 'New'. The reaction against Palmerston's high handed approach lead to more consultation between the Crown, ministers and the Foreign Office during Queen Victoria's reign. However it can be seen that the emerging Imperialist Americans adopted a similar tenuous 'pre-text' strategy most famously in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 in which a series of incidents at sea allowed President Lyndon Johnson to start a the land invasion of Vietnam. Johnson then escalated the war without Congresses approval which damaged his legacy. Just as the WMD intelligence dossier proved to be the flimsy pre-text, once again, for the G.W. Bush  US government and the Tony Blair administrations invasion of Iraq.  Wars are still being fought on flimsy 'pre-texts'.

Don Pacifico: The Acceptable Face of Gunboat Diplomacy by Derek Taylor

Chronicle of Britain and Ireland (1992) JL Publishing/Random Century

(1)http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/CivitasReviewMarch05.pdf

PM Blair and Pres. Bush "apologise"

http://youtu.be/7iRnxbcPgbE

Inside Iraq Al Jazeera 7th June 2010
http://youtu.be/B0Zg-OwnvWA

The First Lady and Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School

Michelle Obama, the current First Lady,  has now established herself as the champion of a North London School. Her first singular journey as First Lady was when she visited the school in 2009. The connection is a positive one in a number of different ways and illustrates a fine example of Cultural Diplomacy in action and one hopes that reciprocal arrangements will be fostered. It is a shame the Prime Ministers wife does not seem to be present which is a shame. I suppose she was planning to do other things. The sight of both First Ladies being involved with a school or twin school arrangement as an  example of fostering ties and links would be one that No 10 should think about. But I would hesitate to let the Foreign and Commonwealth Office know about it. .

I wanted also to look at the significance of choosing a school named after a remarkable early feminist and pioneer in the medical proffession- Elizabeth Garrett Anderson herself. She was a gifted physician and an early Victorian feminist who became the first female member of the British Medical Association. The BMA then saw fit to make sure she was the only female member for 19 years ( from 1873-1892) by closing the doors of opportunity to woman physicians after letting Anderson join. So this all ready shows that the school stands for opportunity for women who study, women involved with science and with a background message of social mobility in a new era. Added to this is an international and transatlantic dimension which has broad appeal.

Oxford University recently got into some controversy with the current Prime Minister about social mobility at the university and equality of opportunity. In cold statistical terms  some colleges have not selected many young black men and women at their colleges and this is true of most of the universities in the elite Russell group of universities.

In fact London Metropolitan may be 119th, in the league table of universities, on some issues but it is the top university on black and ethnic representation and opportunity in the country and a pillar of social mobility. May it remain so.

References:

Michelle Obama, First Lady, at Oxford University:

http://youtu.be/VQDjYyKGRNU (49 minutes)

Report on Public & Cultural Diplomacy: Wilton House July 2010 Conference Report

• 'Wilton Park is an executive agency of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is academically independent.' (wikipedia entry)

• This report was published before the wikileaks episodes and just after the Coalition government was formed and before the 'Arab Spring'. There is much emphasis in this report on UK's ability to handle web 2.0 platforms and this runs through the document. It is concerned with person-to-person relations when governments try to reach out in gestures of good will. How do audiences 'consume and interpret key government messages'? Like the French with a  gallic shrug of the shoulders perhaps. There is inherent in this the idea that the 'new media' has to settle down. The forces of conservatism wants the new kids on the block to stop causing such a ruckus in the 'hood all ready. There is a great deal of emphasis on strategic approaches and yet later the document suggests no one really knows what works. To be fair the document is a distillation of a high level discussion on diplomacy. The trouble is that they did not involve people with 'ideas' or 'imagination' to get them, the diplomats, to relax and take a chill pill. There is an emphasis on the need for a more 'regional diplomacy' but no reference to more regional democracy and no English parliament or English FCO. Recently the visit of Russell Crowe to the arts department of Durham University seemed to show the possibilities. (Footnote) (However things do not always go according to plan with Russell Crowe, who is not one of Australias designated citizen diplomats) The common thread is that the FCO needs to be 'creative' and use some 'imagination'. Aaah errm let's get some British artists and designers in! Some web designers maybe. Connect the message and connect the dots too. The report lists the achievements and challenges of the FCO's digital campaign.
• Climate Change Summit
• G20 meeting in London 2009
• Some challenging Middle East initiatives which will take longer to come to fruition
• A less than successful campaign in  Africa.

Some clear evidence is needed of the impact of PD during the economic downturn. As we know now the Coalition has decided the BBC should take responsibility for the World Service which was a partially economic decision. The Conservatives were always upset that the World Service would not do what the FCO wanted it to do. The report shows that the government have not yet decided what role the general public should have, just so long as the policy ideas come from those who have the paid jobs and the job specs designed to do just that. The report rejects the simplistic ideas of working on Brand UK. Moving away from Cool Britannia. After all New Labour has gone and the new bosses have their shiny new brooms to use. 'Ingenuity' is also key which Carne Ross would agree with. The report is missing the idea that PD in the UK needs a qualitative kite mark and a range of experts from a range of fields.

The role of the military  is discussed. There is an awareness that NATO will have a bigger role. But we know what that role is and once again the objectives are rather fuzzy around the edges. 'Soft power and the military' seems a tautology but this is the future we are told. Applying Nye's definition would seem to me to be too accepting of an ideology.  Here it is 'image and message' that are the key. If Abu Graib type events and civilian deaths can be avoided then all the better for the 'image and the message'. Later in the report it refers to a 'slow cooking approach' to 'enhancing soft power.' Does NATO own art galleries? I do not think so.

Much of the report can be summed up as 'know your enemy' or 'keep him close' which is ancient advice from Sun Tzu. PD must assess threats from those who are 'marginalised states of mind'. The report refers to Al Qaeda as 1% organisation and 99% brand with the promise of being a world player on the world stage (and 72 virgins in the next world).

There are new security threats in the world from a variety of sources. It is important to realise that sometimes military messages just do not work. The report talks of 'embedding big user friendly local ideas and values'. This being an idea borrowed from the effects of embedding journalists with the army which is a propaganda exercise which always compromises journalists integrity. Propaganda magic tricks, sleights of hand, and Orwellian double think are evident at times in this report.

The deployment of long term  branding is a strategic lesson that government PD have not refined and adopted to its advantage. However I would say that some brands should not tire their audience for example Coke and Pepsi do not need to advertise any more, they are world brands. Though the report does widen its acceptance of inviting those with commercial insights into the arena such as Vince Cable who used to work for Shell.

PD needs to correct the distortions of perception and open the doors to perception. Governments have intractable cross border problems beyond simple self interests that only cooperation can solve e.g.;

1. Climate change
2. Weapons proliferation
3. International terrorism

Religion can help PD and should not be dismissed by secular society. Governments are sometimes in need of 'suitable moral agents'. For example in failed states the faith community can prove to be an invaluable power to work with.

The report looks at the power of social networks in the developing PD initiatives. Many are still not convinced but diplomats need to approach social networks with 'cordial honest(y) and professional(ism)'. But many are clueless as to how something like facebook can 'be factored into strategic decisions'. Of course much has changed since July 2010 since the report was released. There are also cultural differences to be respected within social networks. It is as anarchic as international law and yet as we know now it is thisd narrow view which is so intractable. How do you reconcile PD's apparent conservatism and reticence and the inherent nature of social networks which are not elite centred but social and democratic? It is a horned dilemma. The report recognises the problems of this resistance to change. International and US bloggers regularly use the BBC as a source. The BBC is seen as 'authoritative and trustworthy'.

At this point I found something to debate within the report. It states that forum rules attached to the media are rules set by the community and this is a blind perception. It is not the case. (If I disagree strongly with a given Daily Mail article the adjudicator at the Daily Mail will use his/her editorial power. Debate ends up being restricted. You cannot diss the brand sometimes!)

'The power of partnerships' is a useful conference phrase to bandy about at a conference. It is a bland expression. One sensible prediction which shows some prescience is that 'connectivity will lead to authoritarian regimes changing because they still have to engage'.  This applies to the recent Jasmine Revolution /Arab Spring with some exceptions.

    On th subject of sport and PD the report has a few things to say. China has slowly been working at changing perceptions through sport. (China won 51 Gold medals in 2008.) The Chinese managed to 'promote global cooperation and peaceful co-existence'. The FCO is seeking to replicate this success in ways that are distinctive. London Mayor Boris Johnson's waving of the British flag at Beijing is an abiding image of the closing of Beijing 2008 and an effective message (Unless you believe that flag waving 'patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel'). It is an 'opportunity to enhance the UK's reputation'. A number of associative factors are helping to promote the UK on the lead up to 2012, perhaps the report has these events in mind. The associative reflex reaction can really help PD.

• The Queen's state visit to Ireland
• President Obama's visit to the UK
• The Queen's Golden Jubilee in 2012
• The wedding of Prince William and Katherine Middleton

However the slogan for the Olympics; 'We're all in this together' whilst it works for the games is being over used and propagandised by PM Cameron in his austerity drives. It can be true for sport but not necessarily in society at large. I do not believe that it applies to the ruling elites who develop neo-liberal policy on the international stage on certain key issues;

1. Terrorism
2. Climate Change
3. Global Economic recovery

It would be more accurate to say that we are all being manipulated together and our right to protest against it is being curtailed. 'Collaboration between global actors such as governments and corporations are essential in the implementation of effective PD campaigns' the report concludes.  In this way the British government will work no doubt, and has worked, with transglobal corporations that will help to deliver a successful Olympics in 2012. The report finishes with a call to evaluate the work that PD does, to reach out and engage. PD cannot afford, as I see it, to be aloof, distant, ultra conservative and dismissive of social networking sites.

My conclusion would be to say that PD is trying to work out what works but just cannot put its finger on what actually works. Diplomats might want to use facebook but the FCO would rather they did not.

Polylateralism: the new music of diplomacy

Polylateralism is central to any understanding of contemporary or New Diplomacy. This is the relationship between the state and other entities. The importance of transnational organisations in the mix of modern state affairs is increasingly important. Geoffrey Wiseman mentions that the United States has, on the face of it, differing diplomatic accentuations in Los Angeles, New York and Washington DC which is due to emphasis and centres of power. New York is host to the UN and other institutions so is polylateralist, Washington DC is bilateralist by nature because many embassies are bilateral and exhibit an older diplomatic raison d'etre. Los Angeles is modern and scattered and has strong links to big transnationals so is polylateralist. However one cannot make this an easy case for explanation because as it happens the World Bank and the IMF are in Washington and a plethora of institutes, think tanks and lobbysists. On closer examination though bilateralism dominates Washington they are all examples of complex polylateral networks. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the gradual emergence of developing states as regional powers the idea of polylateralism has taken root.

Four models have grwon out of these trends:
1)Non state actors: NGO's
2)Deregulation across borders
3)Ethnic and religious tensions have emerged within states as forms of conflict
4)Information based and technological advances have accelerated

(Wiseman)

These developments have shunted bilateral and multilateral methods into the background. The lines of demarcation have become blurred as the state sovereignty has become diffuse. This posits the idea that we are now in a Post-Westphalian world of governance because of the influence of trans-national actors.

This has given rise to a multitude of new diplomatic labels and has seen like modern music a fracturing of genres of diplomacy:

1. “triangular diplomacy” (statestate,

state-firm, firm-firm relations);

2.“multilayered diplomacy” (involving

noncentral governments);

3. “second track diplomacy” (methods of diplomacy

outside the formal governmental system, often initiated by nongovernmental

actors and involving diplomats in their personal capacity);

4.“multitrack diplomacy” (an extension of the second-track concept, which

includes a wide range of societal groups engaged in peacemaking activities);

5.“niche diplomacy” (the ability of small and middle powers to provide

initiative and leadership in specific international areas);

6.“preventive diplomacy” (action designed to prevent existing disputes from escalating

into military conflicts);

7.“virtual diplomacy” (a process of direct global

and transnational communication and bargaining between non-state

groups and individuals made possible by new technologies, such as the

Internet).1.

To further stretch the music metaphor further it was appropriate that a baby boomer American president William Jefferson Clinton, who could play the saxaphone, emerged just after the Cold War ended and just as these changes were taking place to take advantage of the winds of change. Bill Clinton was also forced to change direction in his first term of office which kept him sailing into a second term. A polylateral President emerged into the polylateral age.

So where now will these powerful winds of change take diplomacy now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4RjJKxsamQ

 International Affairs, vol. 68, no. 1Localizing Foreign Policy: Non-Central Governments and “Polylateralism” and New Modes of Global Dialogue 53

final_chap43.qxd 18/05/2004 6:44 PM Page 53

Multilayered Diplomacy

, London: Macmillan, 1993; Louise Diamond and John McDonald,

Multitrack Diplomacy

(ed.),

Violent Conflicts: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy

Institute of Peace Press, 1996; Kevin M. Cahill (ed.),

Before They Start

Advent of Netwar

on “virtual diplomacy” in Washington DC in April 1997. The keynote speeches are

available on the Institute’s web site, www.usip.org. For a sceptical view of the impact of the

internet, see George P. Shultz, ‘Diplomacy, Wired’,

adapted from Shultz’s keynote speech delivered at the USIP conference.

, 3rd.ed., West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1996; Andrew F. CooperNiche Diplomacy, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997; Michael S. Lund, Preventing, Washington, DC: United StatesPreventive Diplomacy Stopping Wars, New York: Basic Books, 1996; John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, The, Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1996. The US Institute of Peace convened a conferenceHoover Digest Selections, no. 1 (1998),(

Wiseman

 1. Susan Strange, ‘States, firms and diplomacy,’

(January 1992); Brian Hocking,

Soft Power Public Diplomacy: Joseph Nye and why China gets it but the Neo-Cons don't

'Rumsfeld said, “I just don’t understand what it (Soft Power) means.” And my reaction to that is, it’s part of the problem.' Joseph Nye

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/joseph_nye_on_global_power_shifts.html

In this talk given by Joseph Nye he weaves his arguments in favour of the deployment of more effective 'Soft Power' into the fabric of current global shifts. In particular the predictions surrounding the rise to power of China. He points out that the predictions are inherently linear when in fact it is oversimplistic to look at economic indicators and say 'China will overtake the US in economic terms' by a certain date. These trends have to be attended to by politicians and diplomats in their 'Smart Power' assessments of current and future outcomes. 'Smart Power' is a development of  'soft power'. It is said that when 'Donald Rumsfeld first heard the phrase ('Soft Power') he didn't know what it meant' (Joel Whitney 2008). Furthermore China need not be the threat to world stability that she is sometimes portrayed in recent times. The key to how she is seen lies in cooperation and discussion around the table at the higher levels. This must also be coupled with the understanding that China's gain need not mean our loss. The 'zero sum game' obsession that some people like to vocalise internationally is becoming less applicable- I think this would be disputed between those with weight on the international stage.  So Nye is saying  to use part of the oft quoted Ethelbert Talbot saying; “The important thing... is not so much winning as taking part.” Nye states that recent discussions about the waning of US power are part of  a periodic and ongoing discussion which has recurred with some regularity since 1958. He refers to the 'privatisation of war' almost casually as if this is a neo-liberal trend we will have to accept almost without question which I find contentious.

"We rarely speak of the soft power of attraction, of persuasion. Soft power is an analytical term, not a rallying cry, and perhaps that is why it has taken hold in academic and business discussions, and in other parts  of the world like Europe, China, and India, but not in the American political debate." (How soft is smart, Joel Whitney interviews Joseph Nye, October 2008)

In this way Nye points to 'Soft Power' being a tool or instrument of Public Diplomacy. The minimal use of coercion with 'carrots' and 'sticks' and the hidden powers of persuasion and attraction with the occasional political 'nudge' thrown in. The last is my addition to the lexicographical pantheon. (The current UK government are convinced that we can be behaviourally 'nudged' into doing the states bidding at home and abroad.) Nye is also stating in benign patrician tones that this has been the way forward for the US role in international affairs since the dark napalmed mornings of Vietnam and so far when Presidents have been aware of the term it has served the US better. Obama's soft power weapon from the outset was his ability to restore America's image internationally. However his success abroad in 'soft power' terms has been perceived by some at home in the US as a weakness by the gung-ho 'hard power' Neo-Con enthusiasts.

 "It struck me that there was something intangible—ideas, values—and it struck me that humans are moved by ideas and values, and it may not be tangible or hard, but it’s still a form of power, and that led me to the idea of soft power." (Nye to Whitney, 2008)