“Colombia is passion":has nation branding worked for Colombia?

What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear about Colombia? Let me guess, Pablo Escobar, cocaine, FARC, civil war, kidnapping etc... It seems that negative associations about Colombia are never ending. Although, it has to be recognised that to a certain extent Colombia’s bad image is justified due to the cocaine- driven internal conflict. It is also true the Colombian government has attempted determinedly to improve its image abroad. As a result, Colombia since 2005 embarked on an active nation-branding effort called Colombia is passion; this campaign aims essentially to change negative perceptions of Colombia by building a positive image, which in turn will generate trust among foreign audiences, thereby having a positive impact on tourism and foreign investment (Proexport Colombia, 2009).

Colombia is passion was devised by Colombia’s export, tourism, and investment promotion agency (Proexport) and David Lightle, an American international marketing consultant. Mr Lightle argues Colombia is being successful on the difficult task of building its image abroad and nation branding is benefiting the country. He points out though, that one of the main reasons of the campaign success is due to the improvement in security and in socio-economic development in the country. David Lightle completely agree with Simon Anholt in that nation branding strategies will not work if a country does not take fundamental changes and reform their societies (Moffett, 2008).

Nonetheless, Simon Anholt still associates Colombia with drugs and violence whenever he hears the name of the country. Although, Mr Anholt does agree that the improvements in Colombian’s internal affairs may lead the country to consolidate a more positive image abroad in the future (Dickinson, 2009). Zaharna argues that Colombia is passion has been a success for Colombia, mostly because the campaign “has a strong domestic stakeholder engagement”. Soon after the campaign was launched many organizations including public and private enterprises joined, they started introducing the campaign logo and slogan into their products. Moreover, Colombia is passion has become a source of pride and national identity for Colombian citizens. This has led to Colombians voluntarily improving the services they offer in areas where they are engaged with foreign publics (tourism and business). The success then, lies in the fact the domestic support has made the campaign more viable and credible; this is represented in the dramatic increase in foreign investment and tourism (Zaharna, 2011).

It could be argued that perceptions of countries are very important, bad associations with a country have a profound negative impact on exports, tourism, and investment. Therefore, countries are increasingly aware of nation branding and want to make a difference with their positive reputation in the global market. It is difficult to establish how much Colombia is passion has influenced the influx of foreign tourists and investment in the last couple of years in Colombia (Markessinis, 2009), nor is it clear whether the campaign has worked in the benefit of the country. However, what seems clear is that Colombia’s slight improvement in image would not have been possible if there had not been a dramatic improvement in Colombian’ domestic affairs.

References

Dickinson, E. (2009, February 19). Memo to Iraq, from Colombia. Retrieved March 22, 2011, from Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/02/18/memo_to_iraq_from_colombia

Markessinis, A. (2009). Colombia is passion. Retrieved March 23, 2011, from Nation Branding: http://nation-branding.info/2009/03/14/anholt-quoted-on-colombia-and-iraq-nation-brands/

Moffett, M. (2008, October 27). Branding Colombia with passion. Retrieved March 21, 2011, from The Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122506768261770669.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Proexport Colombia. (2009). Colombia is passion. Retrieved March 22, 2011, from Proexport Colombia: http://www.colombia.travel/en/international-tourist/colombia/colombia-is-passion

Zaharna, R. (2011, March). Relational Spheres and the Primacy of Domestic and Diaspora Publics in Global Public Diplomacy. Retrieved March 22, 2011, from http://weblearn.londonmet.ac.uk/webct/urw/lc1318399270031.tp1318399298031/RelativeResourceManager/sfsid/1342803440021

Is culture diplomacy enough for the U.S to change it's image?

A cheaper way of doing Culture Diplomacy in the U.S...

It’s not my intention to downplay the role that culture diplomacy can play in people’s lives; It is my believe that through culture diplomacy a country can be more successful in changing foreign audiences perception of itself than the hash use of force. As Joseph Nye would said it’s easier for people to do what you want because they like you; but in present situation of the U.S it’s my opinion they still have to wait for a few years minding their own business, so that people don’t suspect or question about their intentions on their ‘goodwill actions’.
This blog its my view or criticism of Helen Finn article ‘The Case for Cultural Diplomacy: Engaging Foreign Audiences’; as the title states she argues that policymakers in the U.S should seriously consider in investing in culture diplomacy as they did during the cold war. That only through dialogue and not the use of force the ‘hearts and minds of moderate elements in societies vulnerable to radicalism’ can be won. Consequently this would allow changing foreign perception and eventually eliminating the anti American sentiment around the globe especially in the Middle East.

While these visiting centres and libraries around the world where students and journalist can go and learn about America as well as have access to internet may have a positive impact on foreign audiences, the revelation on mass media can counter affect this in a bigger scale. Today we have access to all kinds of websites and information (wiki leaks, whistleblowers, etc), certain information that countries would like to be in public display ‘always’ finds a way to be leaked around the globe and a country like the U.S which through the years has brought a big share of destruction by meddling in other countries business in other to take advantages of certain resources an so on. Through personal experience it’s my believe that this kind of information will have more impact than cultural exchange experiences, people or families who have suffered from Washington greedy policies will most vulnerable for alternative realities (good or bad).

While Helen Finn makes good suggestions about a change in tactics for the U.S in terms of culture diplomacy abroad with regards to the anti-American sentiment around the globe’, she also rightful suggests that an investment in U.S public must also be made so that people are culture aware of what’s going outside their borders. But like any other American article there’s must be an emphasis on American principles, she says that America is the greatest military power since the Roman Empire (true, it’s a fact) and that today it has a significant role in shaping world order as those imperial powers in the past, in other words “as a democratic country and a member of the family of the nations” the U.S has responsibilities.

She suggests that with an annual investment of 2 billion of dollars a year a successful campaign could be done that it would be more successful and cheaper than any war. My suggestion would be for the U.S to mind it’s own business, change it’s policies with regards to meddling in other states affairs, taking care of it’s own people; for example invest in healthcare, education, deal with its ethical division felt around the country, its bureaucratic system an so on. Not only would be more adequate but also efficient. And maybe after this can start doing as they say with regards to their principles. Because the U.S is definitely not a model to be followed and neither the world would be a better place if we all became “mini me” versions of such country. The illusion that media sometime gives is that the U.S is made of New York and California, everything is like Hollywood, but a trip to some conservative areas in the U.S can gives a more accurate view of what the country is like.

From White to Green and its role in public diplomacy in the UK

From White to Green© is an independent UK based non-profit organization that raises awareness of the environmental degradation that Colombia is suffering due to coca cultivation and production. The creation of From White to Green Project came as a direct result of a successful presentation that I did in my first year for the international law module. The presentation had a deep impact on me, my fellow students and professor.

Consequently, I was joined by a fellow Colombian, Oscar Cuervo, who shared the same interests as me. We decided to research further into the field of cocaine production. Thus looking into how the illegal business impacts on deforestation, loss of biodiversity, the displacement of indigenous people and the peasantry who are forced to leave their land and move to the big cities. The predominant aim of the project was to make a positive contribution to me and my colleague’s homeland. A beautiful country which has been devastated by a bloody civil war; a political civil war that was changed into a fight for power over the drug trade from opposing mafia, guerrilla and right wing rebels.

From White to Green is originally based on the Colombian government international campaign Shared Responsibility. The campaign seeks to reduce demand for cocaine in the western world by showing and educating audiences of the environmental catastrophe coca cultivation and production is generating in Colombia (Colombian Embassy in the UK, 2007).

From White to Green aims to inform and engage with audiences in the UK, especially young people, about the problems drug consumption brings to the Colombian rainforest. We believe that drug trafficking affects not only producer countries - like Colombia - but also consumer and transit countries. The project encourages dialogue and cooperation in finding common solutions to a global problem. In order to achieve our objectives we hold a series of presentations, From White to Green visits schools and eco-minded organizations such as the Eden Project in an effort to inform and hopefully deter potential cocaine consumers (The Eden Project, 2010). Furthermore, we attempt to inspire young British people to help put an end to coca demand. We want to mobilize our generation to stop a potential ecocide.

In the last two years From White to Green has been able to build a network with different entities that are interested in achieving similar objectives; these include the Colombian Government, the Eden Project, and various educative establishments. The Colombian Embassy in the UK essentially works as a facilitator; they arrange events so potential non state actors could meet and hopefully create partnerships, thus support them to achieve their foreign policy goal, in this particular case the goal is reduction in cocaine demand.

From White to Green remains independent, hence its success and credibility at informing and educating young people. We do talk openly about topics that appear to be controversial such as aerial spraying (fumigations). We believe that aerial spraying which is rigorously carried out by the Colombian government with the financial support of the United States; this threatens the health of the environment and the wellbeing of the indigenous communities and the peasantry that live in the coca growing areas (Quimbayo, 2008). A common critique that we hear in our presentation is that of the conflicting behaviour the Colombian government displays in regards to aerial spraying. On one hand it campaigns to educate audiences about the environmental damage caused by cocaine production, and on the other hand it fumigates with strong herbicides in the rainforest that is killing legal crops and contaminating rivers and putting the health of its own population at risk.

For more information and pictures on the environmental damaged caused by coca production in Colombia please click on the link
http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/19/cocaine-rainforests-columbia-santos-calderon?intcmp=239

References

1. Colombian Embassy in the UK. (2007). Foreign Policy Goals: Shared Responsability. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from Colombian Embassy in the UK: http://www.colombianembassy.co.uk/en/foreign/share.html

2. Quimbayo, G. (2008, December). Cultivos de uso ilicito y Ecocidio. Retrieved January 20, 2011, from The Transnational Institute: http://www.tni.org/archives/policybriefings/brief28s.pdf

3. The Eden Project. (2010, 4 May). Colombia From White to Green. Retrieved March 13, 2011, from The Eden Project Planet Talk: http://www.plant-talk.org/colombia-coca-white-to-green.htm

Let's bring some theory to the study of Public and Cultural Diplomacy!

FROM: Krushchev and Kennedy sitting on nuclear weapons

TO: President Medvedev and Obama having Hamburgers

Let’s praise Constructivism for explaining change in International Relations. As it is my favourite theory, I will try to highlight its basic arguments in relation to the role of public diplomacy.

International Relations theories could be divided into Rationalist theories (positivist – like Realism, Neo-Realism) and Reflectivist (post-positivist theories – like Constructivism).

Public Diplomacy has emerged in the light of post-positivist views, which sees diplomacy in the new context by considering the importance of values, ethics, socialization, communication, identities etc. Particularly, the existence of identities in International system plays a very important role for the conduct of diplomacy.

Every country has got a particular identity. Alexander Wendt argues that states 'acquire identities relatively stable, role-specific understandings and expectations about self' through their interaction with other states (Wendt, 1999:135). The Rationalist assumption is that actors do not change, 'their learning and perspective taking do not change who the actors are or what they want, just their ability to achieve their wants in a given social context, known as 'simple learning' (Wendt,'Social Theory of International Politics',p.333,1999,Cambridge University Press). The Interactionist assumption (where our public diplomacy domena lies) is that learning and socialization can change identities and is described by Wendt as 'complex learning'. What distinguishes constructivist model towards change in identity from other theories is a different conception towards reproduction of identities. Put in simple terms - states can and do change...In this regard, we can use an example of the process of the Cold War coming to an end (a process through engagement, through interaction). The identity of the USSR has been transformed with the help of soft power techniques, through engagement, public and citizen diplomacy initiatives. The interactive process in which Gorbachev and Reagan became to engage in the early 1980s to the middle 1990s resulted in changing the map of the world. The argument is that public diplomacy (what was still in big part but not entirely propaganda sustaining the ideological confrontation) played an incredibly important role in bringing communism to an end and therefore transforming the identity of The Soviet Union. Among influential public diplomacy initiatives were: student exchanges, cultural events, and other activities undertaken by the U.S Information Agency and The Department of State whose role was spreading democratic ideas and values within the Soviet block.

References:

Alexander Wendt, ‘Social Theory of International Politics’, Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Emanuel Adler, ‘Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics’, European Journal of International Relations, p. 348, 1997.

Maja Zehfuss; ‘Constructivism and Identity: A dangerous Liaison’. University of Warwick, Coventry, UK; European Journal of International Relations, vol. 7, number 3, p. 315- 348, 2001.

Nicholas Greenwood Onuf , ‘World of Our Making’, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989.

Ted Hopf, ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’, International Security, Vol.23, No.1 (Summer), pp.171 – 200, 1998.

Public and Cultural Diplomacy Dilemma

Public qnd Cultural Diplomacy are very much the same. However, since they are two different words, that would mean that they are somehow diffrent. But how?

As I understand it, Cultural Diplomacy is part of Public Diplomacy. Indeed, Public Diplomacy is of course pursued by governments in various means, and one of them, is by using their culture to promote their national state.

Indeed, in London, a very cosmopolitan and international city with many foreign embassies and large international communities, hosts many events that would then be considered as 'culturally diplomatic': art exhibitions, food fairs, concerts and special parties with the national music.

For example, the Venezuelan Classic Concert of the 'Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra of Venewuela' promoted by the Venezuelan Embassy in London, or the Christùas Food Fair at the Eùbassy in December 2010 promoting the Venezuelan cuisine for that time of the year; the only thing that makes them fall into the category of 'cultural diplomacy' is the involvement, in any sort of way, of the Venezuelan government.

However, the Salsa Night organised by the Venezuelan community group 'VENenIN', on the 5th of March 2011 in a club in the center of London, zhere people attending could enjoy Venzuelan music and food, would not be considered as 'Cultural Diplomacy' just because the Venezuelan Embassy, and by extension the Venezuelan Government, did not have any involvement. But the Venezuelan culture was very much promoted! Isn't it confusing?

Public Diplomacy in ancient Greece

Public Diplomacy may be mainly associated with modernity and post-modernity but its constituent parts are as old as statecraft. We can trace the roots of public diplomacy as far as ancient times, more specifically to 5th century BC Greece comprised of several hundred city-states (i.e. polis). Greek politics was largely developed through early form of what we today call public diplomacy, which at its broadest refers to communication that states make to the foreign public. One of the techniques of public diplomacy (some say its earlier form) was public speaking - Rhetoric. With no communication technology known today, diplomats used rhetoric as an effective way to convey a message. It was the eloquence of speech that made this form of communication so successful in addressing the foreign public. It soon became a form of an art. Understanding the power of rhetoric, which if presented properly could evoke any desired emotion and generate successful foreign policy implementation led to rhetoric become a leading teaching method in schools, courtroom, used during elections, political debates and mobilisation for war..

Political leaders now and then share similar objectives - for example, the promotion of democracy. As may be inferred from this, rhetoric in ancient Greece was perceived as a very important dimension of democracy, an example of citizens power to induce free exchange of ideas, opinions and counterarguments. In this view, political consensus would be achieved by persuasion, free choice and dialogue rather than coercion. Soft power versus hard power..Ancient Greeks already understood the magic role of persuasion in achieving political ends. As Hannah Arendt writes ('The Human Condition', (1958), Chicago, University of Chicago Press, p.26) - 'To be political, to live in a polis, meant that everything was decided through words and persuasion and not through force and violence'.

The founder of rhetoric is said to be Corax of Syracuse but the most prominent technicians of political and diplomatic activity were the Sophists (the philosophers and teachers). One of the most known Sophists was Protagoras, with who we associate the famous: 'When truth and justice fail through inefficient advocates, the skilled rhetorician will set this right..'.

There was at the time confusion whether rhetoric presented the truth, what should its ethical frames be and so there were different stands taken on the subject. The idea of rhetoric for Plato, Socrates and Aristotle (he taught rhetoric to Alexander the Great) was based on informing and convincing the public of the truth, while for Sophists to whatever the set goal. Here comes the dilemma over ancient public diplomacy being an effective propaganda. This dilemma continues till date. There is a very thin line between informing and propagating. Perhaps we should bear in mind words of G.R. Berridge who argues it is all a matter of intentions..If we take this point of view we can therefore agree that it is possible to separate public diplomacy from propaganda by looking at the intentions (bad or good) and the sources employed (truthful or falsified). One can also ask whether it was Sophists propaganda or Thucydides' rhetoric that made Greek city-states under the leadership of Athens and its empire to go to war against Peloponnesian League led by Sparta...But as both public diplomacy and propaganda aim to influence the public opinion regardless of the sources (Berridge, 'Diplomacy:Theory and Practice',p. 182, 4th ed, Palgrave ,Basingstoke) the answer is not that clear, both form part of one another..

There is no value in trying to put rhetoric, public diplomacy and propaganda in absolute terms, perhaps it is more practical to focus on understanding the benefits of creating the climate of trust in the process of influencing the foreign publics across the world. This in longer term would create more opportunities and enabling environment for the country's policies. Trying to picture the links between rhetoric, public diplomacy and propaganda was a difficult task to do but I do hope that one clear message comes out of my work, whichever technique we choose to influence the foreign publics - public diplomacy requires an understanding of the role of credibility, reliability, the role of engagement and dialogue in generating successful soft power. As Joseph Nye (2008) argues: 'Public Diplomacy that degenerates into propaganda not only fails to convince, but can undercut soft power.' The use of propaganda is not a path to long term success (George W. Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq or Athens decision to go to war with Sparta).

References:

Berridge, G.R., (2010),'Diplomacy: Theory and Practice', p.182, 4th ed, Palgrave, Basingstoke.

Brown, John H., (2010),'Propaganda, Rhetoric, and Public Diplomacy', US Centre on Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog, 26th September, 2010.

http://johnbrownnotesandessays.blogspot.com/2010/09/propaganda-rhetoric-and-public.html

Brown, John H., (2007), 'The Paradoxes of Propaganda', US Centre on Public Diplomacy, CPD Blog, 16th April 2010.

http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/newswire/cpdblog_detail/070416_the_paradoxes_of_propaganda/

Hannah Arendt, (1958), 'The Human Condition', Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, p.26-27.

Jebb, R.C., (1962), ' The Attic Orators', New York, Russel & Russell.

Leonard, Mark, (2002), 'Public Diplomacy', London: Foreign Policy Centre.

Nye, Joseph S., (2008), 'Public Diplomacy and Soft Power', in 'The Annals. The American Academy of Political and Social Science', p.94-108.

Roberts, Rhys W., (1963), 'Greek Rhetoric and Literary Criticism', New York: Cooper Square.

Robinson, C.E., '(1933), 'Everyday Life in Ancient Greece', New York: AMS Press.

Is Nation Branding Significant for Diplomacy?

To me the most important tools in Diplomacy involve the art of listening and negotiation, an engagement or exchange in which all parties feel they have advanced, whether it be government to government, government to people or people to people. Cross border cultural and traditional exchanges alongside active participation in public diplomacy are important soft power tools to raise the credibility and trust with foreign publics. This trust then influences foreign governments and large companies and places nations in comfortable positions on the world political stage and can also provide an economical advantage improving FDI, to ultimately achieve what’s in your best interest.

In recent years Nation Branding has become a popular tool for which nations can measure their popularity overseas. But is nation branding a tool for diplomacy or is it merely an example of fabrication, which cannot be linked to diplomacy? Ultimately I think it is the latter and I will try to explain why. The ways in which nations brand themselves it not overly dissimilar to that of corporations, marketing mechanisms and public relations gurus are bought in to help heighten a nations popularity abroad. Wally Olins, in his book Trading Identities highlights the similarities and shifts that have more recently been taking place with nations becoming more like companies through their methods of selling themselves abroad (1). Branding is a popular way to increase tourism, FDI, exports but ultimately the decision on what to market is fabricated with an aim, to improve a nations popularity.

As I said initially, diplomacy involves engagement and public and cultural diplomacy requires active engagement to influence foreign publics. The tools in nation branding don’t actively involve engagement, they simply are an advertisement of the host nation. I believe the most important tools to influence international opinion stem from nations actions on the international and domestic stage, their foreign and domestic policies. The ‘Nations Brand Index’ is an index derived by Simon Anholt in which public opinion measures national image and reputation abroad for fifty nations. Simon Anholt uses key questions relating to the six dimensions of his competitive identity hexagon.



These indexes are worthy of the recognition for measuring business and tourism but nothing else significant, even Anholt himself has contradicted the idea of nation branding by saying it doesn’t work. Simon Anholt notes that, ‘Countries, cities and regions that are lucky or virtuous enough to have acquired a positive reputation find that everything they or their citizens wish to do on the global stage is easier(2)’ this seems an obvious statement but there is no proof that nation branding through marketing and PR has changed foreign public opinion, improving any countries reputation, and it would seem naïve to assume it could. Although advertisements may raise revenue through tourism and can be a good indicator for countries on where they may need to make improvements, international opinion usually stems far deeper. The Anholt-Roper index report even proves my point, in 2009 America moved to the number one rank from number seven in 2008(3), this would demonstrate that public opinion changed with the change of president as culturally, economically and scenically nothing significantly changed in the United States. Governance is the only index that can really be advantageous to a nations diplomacy. For nations to truly engage in public diplomacy they must demonstrate they are actively engaged with, and acknowledge their domestic public and foreign public through their policies and agendas. Take the example of China, they had the perfect stage to publicly demonstrate their cultural heritage during the Beijing Olympics, which they did, but it didn’t change foreign opinion on their governance and the human rights violations.
I therefore think that whilst nation branding may be relevant to revenue, marketing can in no way paint a good picture for governments who fail to demonstrate they consider public opinion.

(1)Olins, W. (1999) Trading Identities; Why Countries and Companies are Taking on Each Others Roles
(2) Simon Anholt. Available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmfaff/581/58106.htm
(3)Anholt GfK Roper Nation Brands Index 2009 Highlights

It's all about Foreign Policy!

According to the Alex Ross (Senior Advisor for Innovation in the Office of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) the statecraft of the 21st century is not technology, but foreign policy. Having said that, of course technology plays an increasing role in conducting foreign policy; social media has become an important tool for governments to deliver their national message and to reach out the most number of people. What I found even more interesting from this event was the following:

The internet has taken over in a 3 important spheres of our lives (taking into account that you have easy Internet access): in the infrastructure, in communications and in mass media.

From there, we can see two new phenomenon:

1 . Social movements like those in the Middle East and North Africa lately did not need to have a leader that would inspire people; ‘The network is the leader’. Indeed, the use of social media tools like Twitter were sufficient to spread the message that people wanted a change and to show exactly what was happening almost ‘on live’. The effect that those communication tools had on those particular events was not that the former made the latter happen (one could argue that they would happened anyways) but rather that it allowed the ‘revolution’ in all those places to happen faster.

2. People from Paris, London, New York to the other side of the world in Hong Kong can now contribute in the aid given abroad with only their phones. Indeed, after the earthquake in Haiti the 11^th of January and in Japan on the 11^th of March, several iPhone applications were created for iPhone users to donate funds to help international organisation in their aid delivery (i.g. Croix Rouge: Aide au Japon iPhone application realeased on the 16th of March).

In his speech, Alec Ross explained how the Secretary of State ordered the establishment of a tool that people could use to act rapidly to the catastrophic news. What was put in place was a mobile text system for people in the US soil to donate funds to help in Haiti. He says that much more people participated to this action (more than 3 million), which permitted to raise US $35 billion in only two weeks.

The position conclusion on this would be that when knowing how to use and work with the new communication tools at one’s disposal, civilians can be a lot more powerful!

Having said all this, I have now another point to make, in which I will probably blog about later on, but I would like to say that these sort of events and talks happening across almost all universities in London are great for students and for the people interested in the topic of the event to see practitioners’ point of view, experience etc... However, in my opinion, it is even more important to those speakers, especially when they represent a foreign country, to attend events like that as guest speakers: they are still doing diplomacy and promoting their foreign policy.

This can be seen in Alex Ross’ speech: he always came back to Hillary Clinton’s speech on ‘Internet Freedom’, delivered in January 2011 when the questions asked were beyond his duty. He also exposed to the public his background and talked about a charity that he founded few years ago, but did not give any name. Of course not! He was there as the Senior Advisor for Innovation, a member of the US government, and therefore, had to stick to it!

> What a great example of public diplomacy and soft power!

To see the LSE event posting as well as listening to the MP3 podcast:

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2011/20110310t1830vHKT.aspx

To listen to Hillary Cliton’s speech on ‘Internet Freedom’:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccGzOJHE1rw&feature=related

Agenda for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) on Public Diplomacy: The Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012

• An estimated global audience of 4 billion
• 14,700 participants in attendance
• 120 heads of state in attendance
• 25,000 Journalists
• 320,000 extra foreign visitors

Since it was recognised that the use of soft power tools can influence foreign nationals, highly beneficial to governments when it comes to policy and agenda setting, Britain has raised it public diplomacy agenda. Over the last ten years, after the Wilton Review of 2003 concluded that the governments work was uncoordinated reducing its advantages, the FCO has continued to build on its public diplomacy tools through research and analytical programs.

Foreign Secretary William Hague recently noted, after the Coalition government came to power, that Britain must raise their game in public diplomacy initiatives and take advantage of the developing humans networks to reach more people, stating ‘Britain can now carry our arguments in courts of public opinion around the world as well as around international negotiating tables’… ‘and we overlook international opinion at our peril’(1).

The Olympics is one of the few occasions when different cultures, regions and publics unite on the world stage and a perfect setting for a nation to publicly display its culture. Note how South Africa successfully raised its international reputation through the 2010 FIFA World Cup (2). The FCO held a session in November 2010 to report on how they hope to use 2012, an event with a guaranteed vast international audience, to raise Britain’s profile through public diplomacy. With Simon Anholt and other diplomacy and market specialists in attendance, the aim was to compile an agenda based on other Olympic experiences to strategically raise Britain’s profile and promote its agendas such as trade and a green agenda abroad(3). As Simon Anholt notes, ‘the only remaining superpower is public opinion - and we are all, in one way or another, talking about effective diplomacy with that superpower’(4), it is therefore vital that Britain take advantage of the huge publicity of the Olympics to spread their image and ideas.

The paper highlights the FCO’s four objectives for the games in point 30 as being;
• National interest: To contribute to UK foreign policy goals by using the profile of the Olympics to promote British culture and values at home and abroad. To cement Britain's reputation as a valuable bilateral partner and a vibrant, open and modern society, a global hub in a networked world.
• Prosperity: To bolster the UK economy, increase commercial opportunities for British business in target countries, and secure high value inward investment.
• Security: To enhance our security by harnessing the global appeal of the Olympics, particularly among the young, to reinforce values of tolerance, moderation and openness.
• Cross-Government approach: To work seamlessly with other Government Departments and partners, mobilising the powerful asset of the FCO's unique network of Posts to deliver the greatest international impact for our strategy (5)

One of the key exercises to achieve these objectives is through the ‘See Britain (Through My Eyes) campaign which will strategically target countries that the FCO see as advantageous in achieving British interests. This campaign uses short films by non British citizens to raise Britain’s reputation, culturally, socially, and politically.
See Zeinab Badawi, Sudanese-born newsreader talking about freedom of speech and Britain's thriving media

A second planned initiative is the promotion of the 'International Inspirations' programme, which aims to give 12 million children in 20 countries access to high-quality and inclusive physical education, sport and play (6).

With a large variety of tools at Britain’s disposal abroad and at home, it will be interesting to see what other initiatives the FCO build on between now and the Olympics for pursuing the governments interest abroad through public diplomacy.

(1)Point 8. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmfaff/581/58106.htm
(2)See http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/features/1014549/Reputation-survey-South-Africa-shines/
(3)Introduction. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmfaff/581/58106.htm
(4)Simon Anholt http://www.simonanholt.com/Explained/explained-introduction.aspx
(5)Point 30. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmfaff/581/58107.htm
(6) Point 37. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmfaff/581/58107.htm

“Globalisation and the one remaining superpower” – “public opinion” (Anholt)

Has public opinion any relevance today? Does public opinion influence public diplomacy?



Edmund Gullion says that public diplomacy is “the cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries”; many writers like Joseph Nye and Anholt argue that public opinion matters. Its relevance came especially during the cold war and after where we saw the spread of democracy, followed by globalisation which brought a proliferation of international actors and technology, which allowed people to make their concerns heard in an easier way. Through these facts one can argue that public opinion holds power, furthermore one can also say that public opinion is key in resolving certain political issues and has great relevance in public policy being a hot topic on many political agendas. As example of this straight after the end of the cold war the USA started by reducing the budget of its public diplomacy department, thinking there was no need to invest so much in its image abroad, but after the September 11 attacks in 2001 decided to invest again (even don not as successfully as previously) since as a country ‘they couldn’t understand why were they hated’, over the years and especially after the Iraq invasion in 2003, we could see the USA various attempts to change public opinion abroad by the creation of radios, magazines and so on.

However as Noam Chomsky rightful points public opinion has no influence in policy making, through out our western democratic societities we see the division of what the people want and the policies engaged by our democratic governments which don’t take our will into consideration. Were we asked about what we think should be done in Iraq or Afghanistan? No, but opinion polls are available that tell the government what we think, in other areas such as education even when protesting about cut and fees increasing we are still not heard.
We who live in democratic societies far long than many other countries, found ourselves with the same problems that many people in authoritarian regimes. We may not be killed for protesting, but our protests are not taken into consideration anyway. Today Egyptian people opinion holds more power (in their state) than ours, who pride ourselves of our liberal freedoms. We have ‘free’ election, we choose who will represent us (from the candidates given to us), but we have no say in public policy making, and neither during political campaigns public policy issues are not discussed in an open way, making it hard to know the position of such parties in real issues and what the implications are. In real politics public opinion does not count, unless people are in the streets Demanding change and ready to sacrifice themselves for this change as we are seeing in Egypt or as we saw in the revolution wars.

Adapting public diplomacy to a new and globalised world

Cull defines public diplomacy as “an international actor’s attempt to manage the international environment through the engagement with a foreign public”. (2009: 12) Due to changes in the way public diplomacy is practiced, many now speak about the New public diplomacy. The shifts include; the emergence of non-traditional actors such as NGOs, new and faster technology available to the actors which has blurred the clear lines between the domestic and international news spheres, new terms within public diplomacy such as “soft power” and “branding”, and people to people diplomacy where the international actor simply facilitates the communication. The new diplomacy’s focus is seen as attempting to build relationships between an actor and a foreign audience, or between two foreign audiences. However, the aim is still to manage the international environment. (Cull, 2009) These shifts and developments, together with the global issues we face today, would suggest that governments need to change the way public diplomacy is practised if it is to be effective. That would entail making the new public diplomacy a tool of governments’ foreign policies as well as cooperation between governments and non-state actors. Today’s common problems, such as climate change, diseases, terrorism, need a common awareness and approach.
However, these issues have a lot to do with culture and different people’s beliefs and values, which is what causes difficulties in tackling these problems in a coherent manner. This, together with the question regarding governments’ roles and their influence is the challenge for practitioners of public diplomacy today. (Evans, Steven, 2010)
In the case of terrorism and in particularly Al-Qaeda, it is a minority of people that uses the weapons of new diplomacy and technology to promote its beliefs to an international audience. “Bin Laden is the quintessential public diplomat, not least in how he speaks past governments”. (Evans, Steven, 2010: 20)
So therefore the main question seems to be how states can change and adapt public diplomacy to combat these new issues, as well as how they can form coalitions which also include non-state actors. (Evans, Steven, 2010) In the matter of global terrorism, states might try to use public diplomacy (and cooperation) to deal with certain issues before they arise and worsen; for example by trying to influence political structures, and through development assistance in politically unstable states and regions where terrorism might be more prone to develop and escalate.
After the Cold War, the focus on public diplomacy and its funding, especially in the Islamic world, was reduced as there no longer was a Soviet threat. (Critchlow, 2004) Ignoring public diplomacy in a time of peace or when there is no greater enemy may leave some regions weak and vulnerable to other influences, such as terrorism. If there is cooperation between international actors and a consistent focus on public diplomacy and cultural exchanges, it may help to prevent violent actors being successful in shaping public opinion.

Critchlow, J. “Public Diplomacy during the Cold War: The Record and Its Implications”,
Journal of Cold War Studies, Vol. 6, Number 1, winter 2004
Cull, N. J. “Public diplomacy: Lessons from the past”, 2009, USC Center on Public Diplomacy (accessed on 11/05)
Evans, A. and Steven, D., ‘Towards a Theory of Influence for Twenty-First Century Foreign Policy: The New Public Diplomacy in a Globalized World’, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2010

Public Diplomacy or propaganda..?

The difference between what we refer to as public diplomacy, on the one hand, and propaganda, on the other, is that within public diplomacy there is a notion of mutual influence, rather than one party trying to spread its ideas to the other. The coining of the term ‘public diplomacy’ became the new phrase for the activity in which states engage with domestic and foreign publics. ‘Propaganda’, which sounded negative and was considered a one-way type of information and communication (and in many ways, still is), was rather “left” to the Communists, while the United States conducted public diplomacy in the war of ideologies. (Cull, 2010: 11-12) Although the term ‘public diplomacy’ is fairly new, it is widely used today, but this activity has been practiced for centuries, before there even was a name for it. Berridge claims that ‘public diplomacy’ is only a euphemism for propaganda. (Berridge, 2010: 182) So how do we differentiate the two? The aim of propaganda can be seen as indirectly influencing foreign publics rather than conventional government to government diplomacy (Berridge, 2010: 182), while public diplomacy’s focus lays more in mutual exchange and influence. Cull (2010: 12) names the core practices of public diplomacy as being; listening, advocacy, cultural and exchange diplomacy and international broadcasting. However, if we look at states; is public diplomacy a luxury which can only be practiced by some? A small country (small in “power terms”), if it has the opportunity, can promote itself and its values abroad, for example by giving aid and helping with development projects in developing countries, without this necessarily being considered propaganda or be seen as a wish to influence. Countries that fall into this category can be Sweden and Norway. For a superpower such as the United States, however, the situation appears different. As early as in the late 1930s it was the Roosevelt administration’s realisation that the US had to win the support of foreign populations for its own security. (Nye, 2004: 101)This has affected how the US has acted internationally ever since, as well as how it has been perceived. For example, the US’ focus on ‘public diplomacy’ (propaganda?) seem to have decreased considerably after the end of the Cold War. That would indicate that there may be a focus on influencing foreign publics simply when there is an enemy threat, which does not sound like “mutual influence and exchanges” but rather an attempt to get others on your side. The importance of public opinion and soft power rose slowly again after the terrorist attacks in 2001 and after the realisation that hard power did not seem to be working in the “war against terrorism”. (Nye, 2004: 105) If public diplomacy is mainly utilized when a country’s own interests are at stake, does it not then lack credibility? Is it still public diplomacy or simply propaganda?

G. R. Berridge,” Diplomacy: Theory and Practice”, 4th edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2010,

chapter 11

Cull, N. J., “Public Diplomacy: Seven Lessons for its Future from its Past”, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2010

Nye, J.S. “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics”, New York, Public Affairs,

2004, chapter 4