Launching a new approach to public diplomacy

Last night, I was on Capitol Hill for the launch of the FCO’s new book on public diplomacy. As Alex noted earlier, we have a chapter in the book on public diplomacy and global issues.

At the launch, Jim Murphy underlined that the mission of the public diplomat was to foster “shared awareness and understanding” and to use that to catalyse “common platforms for action.”

But this is, he emphasized, a developing agenda. “No government in the world, as far as I am aware, has by itself managed to develop a coherent theory of modern influence. Nor determined a systematic approach to the practice of such engagement,” he said.

I am now off to Brookings for a seminar that will explore with the Minister what a theory of influence might look like. More on that later, but in the meantime, an extract from our chapter that sets out the scale of the challenge that public diplomats face:

First, public diplomacy is about building shared awareness – a common understanding of an issue around which a coalition can coalesce. The task here is not simply to accumulate information, which often exists in abundance, but rather to invest in analysis, synthesis and dissemination. Are state and non-state actors using the same data? Has a common language emerged? Is there a hub for discussion and debate?

Shared awareness should be the precursor to the construction of a shared platform. The new public diplomacy will usually – perhaps invariably – be a multilateral pursuit. The objective is to build a network of state and nonstate actors around a shared vision or set of solutions: something a bilateral programme will seldom be able to do. This vision or solution need not be provided by a particular government and then ‘sold’ to its partners. The approach is less top-down that that: a really compelling vision will in itself have sufficient power to draw together a network and motivate it to campaign for change.

The end point is institutionalising this network’s beliefs, thinking and structures into a framework for managing a particular problem. Given the amorphous and dynamic nature of the challenges we face, this framework will seldom be a permanent one. Rather, it will involve the creation of a shared operating system that distributes our response to a risk, and is flexible enough to evolve as that risk evolves. The result should be a change in the structure of globalisation, a rewiring of our ability to act together in the face of a collective challenge.

The world according to Oxfam

Oxfam’s head of research, Duncan Green, has published a new book called From Poverty to Power (and Duncan’s started a blog, too, which is definitely worth bookmarking).  It’s an official Oxfam publication, and is effectively their state of the world report for the next decade thereabouts.

The whole book’s deeply thoughtful, and rests on a massive body of research, but I especially like two of its core themes.  One is emphasis on resource scarcity as a central feature on the development landscape.  For Duncan, the gap between haves and have-nots isn’t just about wealth; it’s also over “technology, water, soil and carbon” (see also his excellent Guardian op-ed from a couple of weeks ago).

The other strand that appeals to me is the emphasis not only on effective states (where Matthew Lockwood’s work remains a core reference point for me), but also active citizenship.  Particularly strong here is the book’s Annex on How Change Happens, which everyone interested in campaigning should read (immediately).

The Foreign Office’s new theory of influence

This week, the Foreign Office published a new collection of essays and case studies on public diplomacy edited by Europe Minister Jim Murphy.  The FT had an article on it yesterday, including an interview with Jim:

The thesis we are putting forward is that the nature of power has changed,” he said … “We therefore need to move from a one-dimensional diplomacy to something more effective, which listens to overseas publics and speaks to them.”

Among the key points that Jim makes in the book (as set out in his interview):

– “Foreign ministries must stop seeing public diplomacy as a form of public relations, shouting out core messages and top lines.”

– Governments must understand that “an old-fashioned nation-branding approach to public diplomacy doesn’t change what foreigners think of your country … It matters to us, for example, that in a madrassa in Pakistan people get an informed assessment about the world. But when people in that madrassa get that information, do they need to know it is from Her Majesty’s government? Often it is far more effective, frankly, if they don’t.”

– Foreign ministries need to engage with outside groups at all stages in the policy cycle, from research and analysis to policy implementation. “The era of generating policies in a foreign office silo has gone.” This means, he says, that UK embassies abroad will now use outside consultants in the countries where they are posted to help convey their message to the local public.

And, the article reports, a top line UK target on public diplomacy is shifting the views of foreign publics on climate change – and getting those publics to shift the views of their governments.  To that end, the FCO has prepared a target list of 20 countries where the views of publics are especially critical to determining the shape of future global climate commitments.  According to Murphy,

“In one country, the key constituency to engage with might be NGOs; in another, it might be the leading scientists; in another it could be the main journalists.”

 David and I wrote one of the chapters for the book, entitled Towards a theory of influence for 21st century foreign policy: public diplomacy in a globalised world, and David’s been out in Washington this week to speak at the book’s US launch.  I’ll also be speaking at the UK launch at the Foreign Office on 21 July.