by Alex Evans | Jul 11, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, Global system, Influence and networks
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.
by Daniel Korski | Jul 7, 2008 | Off topic
The privatization of diplomacy is nothing new. Large lobbying firms function in many respects like diplomatic services. Hill and Knowlton, for example, represent Republika Srpska, a province in Bosnia, in ways that a traditional diplomatic service might do – by arranging visits by key officials, lobbying for Republika Srpska’s views with other diplomats etc.
In the non-for-profit world, Independent Diplomat is an organisation set up by former British diplomat Carne Ross to work for those polities that may not be recognized internationally or have the wherewithal to conduct their own diplomacy.
Even governmental diplomacy has privatized elements of its operation, for example IT, visa services or language training. In their 2007 report on the FCO, Alex and David suggest opening up all recruitment in the FCO to outsiders. Chatting to the FCO’s head of HR, I know that the FCO is trying to show greater appreciation of personnel who have spent time outside the diplomatic service, for example in think-tanks or private companies.
But why not take a step further? Why not privatize a whole embassy? That’s right, tender a contract for a company or consortium to run, say, the British embassy in Mongolia for two years, including consular, press, political reporting and diplomatic representation. Let’s see if the private sector can run it more efficiently and cheaper than the government. At the end, ask the NAO for an evaluation after three years. In fact, ask NAO to compare the “private” embassy and a government-run one.
Naturally, the FCO would have to stipulate in the contract a whole series of conditions, including the qualifications of the ambassador, experience and security clearance of staff etc.
But this is nothing new. DfiD outsources an entire department – CHAsE OT, the department’s humanitarian operations coordination team – to a private company, Crown Agents, which to all intents and purposes acts like any other department inside DfiD. In the tender process, DfiD evaluates bids in part on who will lead CHAsE OT department. As it happens, most CHAsE OT heads have had governmental experience. In other words, the requirement for HMA Ulan Bator may be former ambassadorial experience.
What would the advantages be? To start off, to earn a profit a private company may ensure tighter budget control, try to import IT solutions from its other businesses, use up-to-date management techniques etc. etc. Perhaps it will not produce anything better or cheaper, but why not try it. Come on David Miliband and Peter Ricketts, I dare you.
by David Steven | Jun 12, 2008 | Global system, South Asia
Last week, I gave a talk at the Defence Academy on the new public diplomacy, focusing in particular on its implications for Afghanistan.
The full text is after the jump or read it as a pdf.
(more…)
by Charlie Edwards | May 18, 2008 | Conflict and security, Global system, UK
Apropos of Alex’s post on the FCO’s new website, I’ve been checking out the MoD’s aptly named media blog ‘Defence News’ which like a tin of Ronseal doesn’t mix sophisticated narrative with insightful analysis but servers a single purpose: to defend the MoD against negative publicity and refute any allegation the press team can find. A taster:
A number of media cover the publication by the MOD of its Spring Performance report with some claiming that the armed forces are “seriously under strength”. The Armed Forces are stretched but Senior Military Officers advise that the situation is manageable.
Or
It is simply ludicrous to suggest that there is any truth to these offensive allegations. There is no shortage of personal kit or body armour in either Iraq or Afghanistan. All personnel are issued with sufficient supplies before being deployed on operations and there is no requirement for soldiers to buy or obtain their own boots, guns or shirts. Soldiers on the ground and their commanding officers regularly praise their equipment. I beg to differ.
These comments are interspersed with daily diaries of what Ministers are doing, images and an assortment of press releases. Think media communication 1.0 – for beginners. In short the MoD website needs an overhaul. All of which reminds me I am giving a talk at the Defence Image Projection and Reputation Management conference in June on the image of the armed forces in civilian environments.
by Alex Evans | May 18, 2008 | Global system, Influence and networks
Oooh… aaah… bow your heads in reverence before the Foreign Office’s brand new website. Especially nice: this Google maps mashup showing FCO activities around the world (with map pins colour-coded according to the relevant FCO Strategic Priority, if you please).
All the same, lovely as the new site looks, it could still do with being a lot more interactive. Sure, we can leave comments on the blogs (although I can’t help but laugh at the description box on the blogging home page, which says
This blog space provides a place for Ministers and officials to engage in a dialogue with you about international affairs and the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Reword it in your head as “this blog space provides a place for you to engage in a dialogue with Ministers and officials”, and it somehow sounds entirely different, in a good way…)
But rather than limiting public comments to the blogs (which in any case don’t remotely cover the whole FCO waterfront: they’re fine if you want to talk Kosovo or Lebanon, but there’s nowhere obvious for climate change or UN reform), why not go the whole hog and allow us to comment on every page – and have officials engage in the discussion?
That would be public diplomacy.
