Can Media really help Stop War?

I run an organisation which uses media, communication and the arts to support conflict resolution and counter extremism. It’s called imediate.

A friend asked me what the hell does that mean? How can newspapers stop war? How can a painting stop a fight? What does “communications” actually mean? She went further and said it was like swatting a F-15 fighter jet with a badminton racket.

I think I have worked in this specialised field far too long, I thought it was obvious, when of course it’s not. The fact that I believe in this is simply not enough. So, instead of disappearing further up my own behind with academic theories, I thought I would provide a few examples – I hope with a touch of realism. I understand that communications is only part of a broader effort:

• Life saving public information - e.g. Land Mine Awareness Education
• Countering extreme ideas - e.g. Broadcasting a debate addressing extreme ideas
• Giving a voice to the peaceful - e.g. an anonymous radio phone in
• Giving examples of how peace can work - e.g. a photo exhibition of inspiring images of succesfully brokered peace
• Broadening horizons - e.g. soap operas that break down barriers with identifyable characters
• Demonstrating alternatives to violence - e.g. newspaper coverage of peace talks
• Breaking down prejudice - e.g. cross cultural song and dance groups
• Shining a spotlight on atrocities (in a balanced way that doesn’t glamorise the perpetrators nor allow them to fuel hatred) - e.g. TV reports exposing war crimes
• Shining a spotlight on how outbreaks of peace are benefitting people - e.g. TV reports exposing peace initiatives
• Allowing people to air grievances (so that they can be responded to) - e.g. entertaining public road shows that also enourage debate
• Engaging people in creative rather than destructive pursuits - e.g. a video installation that shows how destructive war can be on a personal and human level
• Countering the rumour mill - e.g. health awareness poster and leaflet campaigns that rebut untruths
• Offering other identities to terrorists - e.g. community outreach work that explores and promotes other productive interests
• Allowing the peaceful masses to do the peacebuilding - e.g. providing platforms for natural peaceful leaders to emerge
• Helping communities to take part in their own development - e.g. inviting the population to send in pictures taken on their mobile phones.

A few more:

Providing credible alternatives (if they exist – communications can’t do everything)

Talking to people in hard to reach places

Providing platforms for exchange off the battlefield

Reaching a wide audience

Showcasing the peaceful masses

Other things to remember

• Pictures speak louder than words
• The spoken word reaches more than the written word
• Often the most credible voices come from the community not from leader
• If used negatively the media, communications and the arts can fuel violence, war and terrorism

I am working on a book which will offer real life case studies that back up this theory. And it will be written by some real life people who have seen conflict from the frontline! Watch this space for for examples of how this works - even to stop a fighter jet dead in its tracks.

Social Enterprise Day

Today is Social Enterprise Day - a fitting day to...well...announce the establishment of a new social enterprise.

imediate launches in the new year - but a sneak preview can be found on www.imediate.org.uk. This is Media for Peace.

The X Factor

Exhausted after several days of polite handshakes and “terribly important” high level conferencing, I decided not to cook breakfast last Saturday. Instead I slunk off to my nearest greasy spoon for a fry up. OK, it was Sainsbury’s cafe, but that’s as near as us middle classes get to slumming it these days. The contrast to the silver spoons of the previous few days was somehow comforting, and whilst I didn’t quite have a plastic knife and fork, I was delighted to see that the previous inhabitant of my ketchup smeared table had kindly left The Daily Star for me to read.

And there is was writ large “Muslim Plot to Blow up Eastenders”. Within moments I was back in the groove and I fear I raised a few eyebrows, as I all but launched a fatwa against the said newspaper. In moments The Daily Star had turned me into an extremist. But with a difference, I vent the feeling of injustice with words not with physical might. One reader had texted in “Are these Muslims thick?" and the paper in their wisdom printed it. Closeted in my safe world of The Guardian, I had no idea this ugliness went on – I felt ashamed that I was unaware of it and mentally wrote a note of apology to my Muslim friends who I had in the past written off as paranoid.

So here is the main point (I got distracted by describing my breakfast, sorry) - I didn’t need a three day conference on extremism to tell me that Islam is not the problem. My definition of extremism (which doesn’t include the kind of sporting pursuits my brother engages in) is someone who is willing to act in violence, not out of spontaneous anger, but because of a deeply held belief. And this X Factor lurks within many societies including our own. Tamil Tigers are doing it, Basque terrorists are doing it, British football hooligans are doing it. And well, yes it could even be argued that our troops are doing it (flashback to Baghdad Air Station 2006 when I overheard a young American soldier from the projects saying “we are going to kick some Iraqi ass”). My grandmother was a child when Britain’s radical youth lied about their age to bear arms against the German infidel in the First World War. Although they were child soldiers, we still consider this a noble act today. Before we begin to analyse why people are lead to violent extremism, we must accept that the X Factor is an inherent and potential part in EVERY society. This is nothing to do with Islam – Muslims don’t hold the monopoly on extremism.

It is also clear to me that if we continue to Islamise extremism, terrorism, and radicals (hell, I was pretty radical in my youth) we are playing right into the hands of the small group of murderers (and I mean small – some estimate Al Qaeda as being less than 500 strong). These bad guys need a narrative, they need a single ideology to sell to their followers. The west versus Islam is a neat strap line – but it is THERES and should never be used by anyone with even a vague vested interest in opposing terrorism. I used to work in advertising (you see, I said I was radical) and I have to say that it is would be extraordinary to see your main competitor defining your own brand for you.

Saying that “Muslims” are plotting to murder Britain’s favourite soap stars is like saying “football fans” are planning on slaying Sheffield Wednesday supporters in a cup final. It makes no sense (no, not the bit about Wednesday being in the cup final, silly). If this confusing line were taken, it would surely lead to a sense of persecution, exclusion and “they just don’t understand us”.

OK, it’s a strange analogy. But if only one Daily Star reader (or god help us an editor) gets it, there might be a glimmer of hope – a chance for me to enjoy a greasy fried breakfast with my family without me launching into an embarrassing rant in Sainsbury’s.

Celebrity Guide to Doing Good in the World

You may have heard me bang on about how celebrities who take on causes, don’t necessarily help those causes. Respect to Clooney who seems to be using his skills to record short promos for the UN, and hasn’t finger wagged Al-Bashir on Darfur lately (and I understand he has offered General Agwai a helicopter). But rather than analyse the effectiveness of Jude Law‘s recent mission in Afghanistan (Jude who? Many an Afghan is heard to mutter), I thought it would be helpful if I could pen a rough guide for those celebrities who have come to a point in their careers where they feel they want to give something back. Or maybe you have been asked to back a charitable winner (or a looser) and are weighing up your options. First see where you fit on the Do-good-o-meter?


My career is waning and my image needs improving

I’m bored
I am taking a break from my usual work

I can “raise awareness” of a cause (and let everyone know how nice I am)
I’m nice, of course I will help

I support a cause and want to take time out to help, I don’t really care what people think of me

I want to quit work for a while and do something with more meaning

I am passionate about this issue – I really want to use all my skills and experience to make positive change as effectively as possible

The rest of this article is really only aimed at those on the indigo end of the rainbow. Well done, you are coming from the right place. Chances are you have incredible ability to influence and be a top class ambassador for your cause and dare I say it - a public diplomat. So, a rough guide:

1. If you scored indigo you will already have a passion for your cause. You could want global nuclear disarmament, or better research for a particular disease which took away someone close to you. Maybe you are moved by the plight of the gorilla, or the people of a warring nation? The first thing to do is research. Go there. Meet the sufferers and those working with them. Don’t just talk to NGOs, talk to Governments, broad civil society, academia, the commercial world – get all views.

2. Next draw conclusions about what might help. For example the best way to save the gorilla might be to combat poverty and tribal warfare in the region – and not by “raising awareness” by printing a load of Save the Gorilla T-Shirts. Invite others to help you draw conclusions and get to the root of the issue.

3. Have a strategy. Get professional help with this (a-hem, I would say that) – it will help you hone into what you can realistically hope for, how you could achieve it and in what time scale. It will also help you explore who you should be lobbying and how to measure if your plans are working.

4. Co-ordinate. Is there anyone already tackling this, that you could support? Don’t reinvent a wheel in vanity, someone might already be doing some great work, and could just need a hand.

5. Think about what you are good at (and what you are bad at). Are you a writer, actor, or ice skater? Use your skills and make it relevant. I’m thinking Jamie Olivers school dinners campaign more relevant than Joanna Lumley championing the Gurkhas right to live in Britain (ok, she did well and there was a family history with them). But you get it – make it relevant and your involvement credible.

6. Finally think grass roots. Take your skills and the problem to the sufferers and ask them what you should do and what they think would work. Chances are they will now best. A top down approach is patronizing. OK – unless they are gorillas, silly. But you know what I mean. Talk to the family and friends of the…erm…gorillas.

So, just a few simple words of wisdom, perhaps better suited to my nomadic-wisdom blog, but not altogether uncomfortable on this public-diplomacy page. I look forward to hearing about your successes, so I can highlight them rather than banging on about the wrong approach! Even you, Jude.


The idea for this article was shamelessly pilfered from my bright boyfriend. Thanks hun.

BBC blogger on celebrity charity work http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/08/power_of_celebrity.html

Me banging on about celebrity backers
http://public-diplomacy.blogspot.com/2008/05/celebrity-backerspublic-diplomats.html

Being a Public Diplomat - Top 10 Tips

Given the amount of money that allegedly gets spent on government spin (not to mention election campaigns), it amazes me how those in the very business of influence – the diplomats – often have such limited resources for communication.

Being a diplomat these days is not about seating the Spanish Ambassador next to an ally at a dinner party, nor about handshaked trade or political deals behind closed doors - the majority of diplomatic activity has a public and often highly critical media spotlight shone on it. Diplomats should be considering how they are perceived more than ever, not just by official counter parts and heads of state, but, as a new form of democracy takes grip, somewhat driven by access to new media, the public are rapidly becoming main influencers.

In the absence of this resource, below are my top 10 tips for being a good public diplomat. If you follow this guide you will increase your credibility and make your job easier.

1. Understand the country you are in. Spend some time (the longer the better) before you begin your official assignment. Back pack around. Use public transport. Travel alone if you can – you will meet far more people this way. Stay in hostels and family run hotels. Act like a researcher or journalist – ask questions all the time and take notes. Read fiction written by good local writers. And most important – find out about what your hosts think of the country you come from.


2. Learn the language. If time is a factor, at least learn a few niceties. And smile throughout even your most awkward attempts.

3. Roll your sleeves up and get stuck in. Walk the walk. Don’t patronise “the community” with a drop in visit – stay for tea. Sleep in the refugee camp. Share a local meal. Paint a wall. Clean out a toilet. Not just for the photo – actually do it. Spend time.

4. Talk to the media. Don’t wait for them to come to you. Be on the front foot – see every interaction as an opportunity. Write Op Eds and articles and suggest ideas. Remember there is no such thing as saying nothing in communication – lack of media engagement can give the impression that you don’t care or you are hiding something. Blog. Not on an official site – that is nuts – it will only be read by the converted and by very bored journalists. Blog on a personal site about personal experience. About your tummy bugs, about your doubts and feelings.

5. Think locally. Don’t just respond to the international media. Spend more time with local and regional media and develop a relationship. Internationals get much of their info from local stringers anyway.

6. Be yourself. If you like cricket, play cricket, talk about it. If you like to paint pictures, join local art groups. If you like to dance or play a musical instrument, do it. Use your natural abilities and loves to your best advantage. Be genuine.

7. Think about how you present yourself. Judged on 7% of what you say, 38% on how you say it, but 55% on how you look - this is important. You may have a brain the size of Mars, but sadly your haircut may leave more of an impression. In many countries the public can feel intimidated and alienated by formal dress – so dress casually wherever possible – and always respect the cultural dress code of the country you are in (without being patronising). Note: You may think it your “right” to wear a mini skirt and not be judged by it – don’t be on a crusade to push your personal values unless it is an objective of the mission – be respectful and be respected. (In the picture above, one blogger commented that the Lord Mayor of London looked like an "unmade bed" at the Beijing Olympics).

8. Everyone in the mission is an Ambassador for your country. One of the most influential public diplomats will be your receptionist or your visa section staff. Think how anyone travelling out of their home country is judged as representative. Not every Japanese person is into photography nor every Brit a football hooligan.

9. Have a strategy (as a Communications Strategist I would say that). But really, have one. Don’t focus on activity (although it will lure you in) before you know exactly how this fits in with your overall plan. For example, if your overall plan is to increase trade between countries and lobby for human rights – ensure that your communications strategy reflects this – don’t leap into publicity that doesn’t have this at its heart.

10. And don’t dream beyond your budget.



Above: Chinese Embassy staff in Greece

I can hear the smirking of non diplomats among you who may be surprised to learn that there are very few grandmothers sucking eggs around here – so much of the above is simply not done. Believe it or not there are Embassies in the world where not a single member of staff speaks the local tongue (I am diplomatically not naming names ). I would love to hear from governments who train their diplomats not simply in policy, economics, security or specific press officer expertise - but those who show every member of staff who represents them overseas how to present themselves as a public diplomat.

Coming soon! The Celebrity guide to Doing Good in the World.

Arm Yourself with Books

“You want weapons? We're in a library. Books. Best weapons in the world. This room is the greatest arsenal we could have. Arm yourself!”

I have spent the past week finding out about the media in Afghanistan. I embarked each morning once the suicide hour had passed (by 10am they have either detonated, been caught, or chickened out - allegedly), climbed aboard a deliberately dusty (low profile) Toyota and bumped around the pot holed streets of Kabul visiting various media organisations, until night fall drove me back to my lodge where I gathered thoughts, compared stories and grilled everyone I could lay my hands on about what radio stations they listen to.

On my return, I feel as if I have travelled back (forward?) in time to the reality of the British school holidays, my adrenaline rushes fuelled by breaking up squabbling kids rather than unfounded fears for my safety. I don’t have to look far to see three examples of modern media consumers. My teenage daughter texts and instant messages far more than she speaks and my to sons pour through piles of DVDs, TV channels and YouTube clips of people falling off bicycles in search of entertainment. And (I impress myself here) we even scuttled off to the village library yesterday (open once a week in the old school house) where the kids begged to borrow and the lady who worked there gave my residency in the village the benefit of her doubt. My daughter has been glued to a Louise Rennison “knicker novel” since.

You might think a depressing contrast to last weeks assessments, however despite the lack of media law in Afghanistan, I was struck by the advent of hundreds of radio and TV stations – many of them self funding and commercial (importantly NOT reliant on external money). We picked up a mobile phone for peanuts (with a clever registration system designed to catch out kidnappers) and market stalls were loaded with DVDs for sale (I was told you could buy Ross Kemp for under a dollar – I assume they meant his series filmed in Helmand rather than the man himself). I was also impressed with the sheer numbers of newspapers and magazines bursting onto the scene. One outlet told me that even down south in traditional Pashto areas, women’s magazines were popular. The guest house I was staying in provided more than one English Language newspaper neatly tucked under my pot of green tea every morning with breakfast. Although broadcast media and developments like SMS technology are impressive, it is this return of the written word which moves me most.

A few summers ago, I read about Sultan Khan’s attempts to salvage Afghanistan’s history and literature by secretly buying and selling books in Seiierstad’s novel, The Bookseller of Kabul. Khan risked his life for his passion, but the tragedy is that so much did not survive. As Hamida Ghafour describes in her heart rendering account in the Sleeping Buddha as she searches for evidence of the written words of her late grandmother, “books that survived the communist purges, were looted by the Mujahideen and what was left was burned by the Taleban”.

So to meet, as I did this week, a former Mujahideen commander who had fulfilled his life long dream of opening a public library is hope that there might be a lasting wind change. As a result of recent history, books are at least on the surface treasured by all. The very idea that our second-hand shops and car boot sales in Britain are overflowing with paperbacks would be met with bafflement in Afghanistan, even amongst the illiterate.

Whilst Thomas Carlyle may have said, “the greatest University of all is a collection of books”, there is a more sinister use for the written word than pure learning. In a chilling twist, I learned this week that the insurgents (amongst them foreign Taleban, old school Talibs, and War Lords, but not exclusively so) are using the pen along with their swords of might and have launched in recent months a sophisticated press operation capable of out-spinning both the Government of Afghanistan and the international community put together. Along with a state of the art website, they issue up to ten press statements a day in Dari, Pashto and English, this compares dramatically with NATOs habit of English-only releases and the Governments recorded inability and reluctance to interact with Afghan journalists. I have to wonder – what else have they got planned?

The quotation at the start of this article came not from a War Lord, but from a battle weary Time Lord. My children have been momentarily pacified by Doctor Who, and the squabbles have been abated – but his words send a chill through me and in a poignant moment I wonder whether the Government of Afghanistan and her allies are prepared for this battle. Arm yourself indeed.

Britains Whispered Policy on Zimbabwe

I awoke this morning to the news that the Security Council has vetoed sanctions in Zimbabwe (yes, I had fallen asleep with my laptop in bed with me again). The British representative said the UN had “failed the people of Zimbabwe”

Recently in Blogcatalogue discussion boards (and in plenty of other places) Britain has been getting a slating for its lack of action (and lack of clear stance) on Zimbabwe. I for one argue that Britain is really not the right person to be making any decisions for Zim (a bit like America not really being the right people to be brokering peace in the middle east). However that doesn’t mean we should keep quiet.

Stripping Mugabe of his knighthood was a pathetic attempt to chastise a man not just capable of rigging elections, but of rigging the state run lottery in his favour (perhaps greater media focus on this would appeal to the sense of fair play of the lottery playing public around the world). Given “Robert Mugabe uses the strident criticism coming from Britain to portray this as the old colonial power trying to brow beat Zimbabwe” (Dermot Murnaghan, Sky News), I expect Mugabe was delighted at the news of his loss of status in Britain – it would have played right into his hands. And the very fact that he is able to travel to Rome to a Conference on the world food crisis makes a mockery of our dithering debate about allowing the Zimbabwe cricket team into Britain. This is British public diplomacy at its worst.

Funny that the Foreign Office website claims it is a “modern and effective Foreign & Commonwealth Office that is clear about its role and focuses its effort where it can make the greatest difference” – I gave up after half an hour trying to find a clear articulation of the UKs policy on Zimbabwe. I found a statement from Gordon Brown which included “The whole international community must speak up against the climate of fear in Zimbabwe……We, and others, stand ready to help rebuild Zimbabwe once democracy returns. I pledge that Britain will be in the vanguard of this effort” Is THAT the policy? That everyone should speak up and then we will help once change happens? I then found some bloggers on the FCO website . Surely the FCO should realise that to use itself as a platform will immediately loose the Harare bloggers their credibility? Blogging is about independent thought – anyone who stumbles upon this will sniff the spin from a mile away. (personal bug bear sorry - the best Milliband could do would be to offer some off the cuff comment on other bloggers sites). There was more about the registration of British Nationals in Zimbabwe and travel advice than about UK policy.

Fact is, Britain spends about 30 million quid on Zimbabwe each year. It is spent on tackling HIV and AIDS and reducing food insecurity. According to Department for International Development website it is also spent supporting orphans and vulnerable children to help keep them in school and protect them from abuse. I want to know more about this. I KNOW it is not British. I KNOW DFiD would NEVER engage in Public Diplomacy, but come on, let’s take some credit where it is due and hear about exactly what we ARE doing in Zimbabwe.

If you believe Michael Holman the situation in Zimbabwe is all Britain’s fault. I beg to differ, 15 years ago I spent some time hitchhiking across Zimbabwe (through the unfortunately named Wankee Game park) and living in the township of Chinotemba (Victoria Falls) and I got to know the people and the country. I go with Robert Guests belief that this is the fault of one man. Mr Robert Mugabe (formerly Sir). The people of Zimbabwe I met were a friendly and hospitable bunch. As Guest writes in his book The Shackled Continent – “They should be rich. There is plenty of land in Zimbabwe, much of it ideal for raising cattle or growing wheat, maize and tobacco. Under the ground lies reefs of gold, platinum and other precious ores. The country has a modern banking sector, skilled manufacturers and adequate roads”. It is Mugabe that has stripped his country of hope, it was his ZANU-PF that said Zimbabwe would “be better off with only six million people…we don’t want all these extra people”. (The population is 12 million).

Britain should rebut more. When she is accused of apathy over Zimbabwe she should point to not just the money spent but what this money has bought. When Britain is blamed by the likes of Holman she should articulate a response. Europe is often blamed for Africa’s ills. Again I quote Guest:

Another popular culprit for Africa’s ills is history. Many African’s argue that the current problems spring largely from the traumas that Europeans visited on Africa such as slavery. We must not forget that slavery was not introduced to Africa by Europeans – Arab slavers arrived earlier that the Portuguese, French and the British and Africans were enslaving each other long before the Arabs played their part. And although both Governments deny it slavery still exists in Sudan and Mauritania today.

So when David Miliband said on Sky recently “I think the truth is we've all got to up our game” – I think it is just too weak. If Britain’s stance is to keep their policies to a whisper, they should be aware that saying nothing or saying something quietly actually speaks volumes. There is no such thing as not communicating. And at the moment the message is loud and clear –
“erm….we are not quite sure what to do about this, nor what our role is in all this”.

What is Strategic Communications? Spin?

Strategic Communications or “StratComm” (depending which circles you mix in) seems to have seeped across the pond into Britain. Academics are still trying to define the term which is being used in the States for everything from traditional PR, selling military action to presidential campaigns. Is this the new (polite) way we can use the word “spin”?

"The fact that there is no national security strategy for strategic communications—or even a government-wide definition of "strategic communications"—seven years into the War on Terror is nothing less than a travesty" - Tony Blankley and Oliver Horn, The Heritage Foundation

This week I ran a strategic communications course for the UN’s senior public information officials. I didn’t really attempt to define it – but I did attempt to DO IT. (No, NOT communicate strategically) – I mean strategise about communications (confused?) With interesting results, the more and more strategy (thinking ahead) is applied to all communications activities (and in this I include public diplomacy, public information, media engagement and all influence activity) – the more it becomes clear to me that a bottom up approach is more effective (like the one’s used by the Taliban and Al Q).

What do I mean by “bottom up approach”? (and I do hate myself for this consultant chatter). I mean, talking to the masses, the people, the young, the victims and those directly affected by an issue as a priority over engaging with senior leaders. This has always made sense but in the shift towards greater emphasis on the voice of the people (and iReport is a good example of that – even if it is just lazy journalism) it is even more the case.

As a former diplomat the idea that you speak to society rather than society’s leaders as a means to bring about change, goes against the grain. But I now firmly believe that quiet handshakes between world leaders and high level bilaterals are not the best way to communicate your message, or influence, or alter perception. And it is self-fulfilling prophecy – once a community recognises itself as an important target audience, its view of itself will change and society will become empowered. In the words of Derrick Ashong “No society can develop without an understanding of it’s own worth.”

So for me, StratComm is about a lot more than “spin” – it is as much about research – about listening, consulting, understanding and planning as it is about talking to journalists and those who inhabit the corridors of power.

The Media as a Public Diplomacy Channel

When people think about “communications” they sometimes think of telephones, or if slightly more in the know, they think of the media. In my work I am often at pains to explain that if you have a message, the media may not always be the best method of communicating it. Depending on who you are talking to, sometimes more trusted methods, like music and dance, art and humour can carry a message further than traditional media, which is being seen as unreliable, as audience-fatigue sets it.

But in a blog about Public Diplomacy, I can’t leave the media out. I have just returned from Bonn, where I attended the Global Media Forum. The subject was Media in Peace Building and Conflict Prevention and the people there all seemed to think that traditional media was a powerful tool in building perception.

“We have to rely on the International media to tell our story” Itai Mushekwe, Journalist and refugee from Zimbabwe.

It is clear that governments fear the power of persuasion and influence that broadcasters and the print media have. We heard moving first hand accounts of journalists who had been beaten, imprisoned and even killed in their quest for the truth. Before going to the conference, I posted a handful of media orientated questions onto the blogcatalogue discussion boards, much of which was met with a barrage of hate and cynicism about “da medja”. But like any business - you will find those with integrity and those without. The greedy and lazy exist everywhere. I can only assume the hatred and mistrust I witnessed for the industry is directed at the tabloids, at transparent propaganda and at the ideology of huge media corporations, not the scrupulous who are driven by search for truth. The people I met are from the later group and their oppression is evidence of their ability to be catalysts for change. In her keynote speech, Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr Shirin Ebadi said as much.

“Journalists are important in the fight against fear and ignorance” Catholic Priest, Apollonaire Malu Malu from DR Congo.

Whilst it is clear that traditional media channels influences opinion, I did NOT agree (as you see from my entries on Celebrity Backers and Rice pushing for Arab support) with Vincent Brossel’s (from Reporters without Borders) talk of how European governments could help by BEING VOCAL about human rights abuses in China. So far, how has “being vocal” been effective? Maybe “being vocal” was a short for "a carefully researched public diplomacy strategy that may include, to some extent, the spoken word". I hope so.

And the power of the spoken word is almighty. Clearly I prefer the written (electronic) one, maybe because I live in a society where there is approximately one computer per household. Africans aren’t so lucky and share one between 300,000 (and I don’t expect there is much sharing going on). Literacy levels are not high, so radio is a hugely powerful tool for communicating. As Radio Entrepreneur, Rose Kimotho from Kenya said “Radio in Africa is important, because it is considered the gospel truth”. She went on to describe how the mis-use of vernacular radio had heightened tensions during recent Kenyan unrest. But I was more interested to hear about how radio could contribute to peace building, rather than hear examples of its abuse. I was fortunate to be seated next to David Smith, from Okapi Radio, which broadcasts into DR Congo. Funded by international donors, Okapi advocates the development of democratic life, economic, social and cultural life and contributes to the formation of a responsible public, who are open to dialogue. I also sat with Gordon Adams who has been working on radio communication in Afghanistan. So I didn’t let Rose get me down (as she did several other delegates).

I do, of course have more to say, but will save it for next week's entry. For more on the conference, I blogged for the World Bank too whilst I was there – Blogging for Peace is an introduction and touches on the distinct lack of “new media” in the room, and The Media has a Responsibility? discusses whether responsibiltiy lies with the consumer and the editor, or with everyone (a pet subject of mine which I have been know to rant on about before).

"Rice urges Arabs to support Palestinians"...should she?

OK so it is not just the celebrities doing the patronising finger wagging. You would think Condi Rice would be better versed in public diplomacy (it was pretty public, right? She didn’t take “the Arabs” aside and have a quiet word in their shell likes?) Did anyone else feel slightly uncomfortable this week when the great lady herself sent a “strong message” to the Arab world on increasing their support to the Palestinians? If the objective of the statement was to show folk’s back home that the US are “doing something” then I guess a few voters might have been convinced. As with my Clooney rant (below) I am not convinced that this form of pressure is going to inspire the honouring of financial pledges – in fact I think it will damage US-Middle Eastern relations further (No! How so?)

I can’t help thinking that the US should be removed entirely from the whole brokering peace in the middle east thing. As Morgan Spurlock has found out lately, Americans are not exactly popular round them parts (no shit, Sherlock). They are hardly viewed as impartial - last week Rice stressed that "America's commitment to Israel is unwavering" and it has been for 60 years. And the whole 60 year thing is something that should send Britain’s crusading Mr Blair scurrying for cover - yes remember them terrorist Irgun what bombed the King David Hotel? (OK pedants I know that was 62 years ago), let alone delving deeper to Balfour’s time....it was him what started it wasn't it? Just a polite suggestion – like Rice, perhaps Blair isn’t the best man for the job?

Is this causing anyone else to cringe….? Someone give them some effective public diplomacy advice, please.

A Cross Government Approach - Starting with Afghanistan

The Times today talks about connecting military and reconstruction roles in Afghanistan (Afghanistan: joined-up thinking). You may have noticed I had a small rant in responseSurely an exclusively military solution to the conflict isn't the aim of any of the parties? I concede that the MOD, FCO and DFID should work better together, but in Iraq I saw the CIMIC team working in reconstruction. And I could positively rant about the UK learning from the US comment!But I didn’t and couldn’t (word count restriction) say enough. So some further points in turn:

1. I am convinced that forces in Afghanistan including the Afghans of course understand that an exclusively military solution to the conflict is not the answer (US Defence Secretary Robert Gates "we must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military" in November last year, and last month the UK Defence Minister told the Telegraph that we should “talk to the Taliban” )

2. Since trying to develop a cross government (and even bolder, a “cross-coalition”) communications strategy in Iraq a couple of years ago, I have become passionate about joined up thinking. This article does not go far enough. To muse that DFID and should work together with the military on reconstruction efforts is true, but the “working together” thing starts way before that – and in Afghanistan in particular it spans the whole of the international community (at least those signatories to the Compact) AND the Afghan government. Unless there is a clear vision for the future of Afghanistan and a unified approach, progress will be slowed. Paddy has said this of course (not that it got him very far - read Sharif Ghalib for more).3. The UK learning Hearts and Minds from the US government? Perhaps I shall open that to the floor. Why is General David Petraeus deemed to be a success, and exactly what hampered British reconstruction efforts in Iraq? And why are Brits chosen to be deployed to Helmand and Basra? Discuss……

Celebrity Backers?.....Public Diplomats

(photo by Albany Associates)

Inspired recently by Mark Naylor's blog on Celebrity and Diplomacy - I would like to have a mild rant. It is my pet subject of today as I work with a company who are tasked with advocacy and public information campaigning in Darfur.Here is what I said to Mark:Celebrity Diplomacy is not as effective as at first appears. Often the main driver behind participating in ethical awareness raising campaigns has far more to do with the agent and PR team working for the celebrity and charities are often hand picked to show said idol in the best light. A genuine public diplomacy initiative for a cause will have the betterment of the cause at heart and not the image of the celebrity. We should be addressing the issues of the world in proportion to needs and not for quick wins and quick spins.Sometimes celebrity endorsement can have an adverse effect too….for example spouting off about problems in Darfur without having a clear understanding of the issues or sensitivity towards the leaders involved. I am not convinced that a bout of arrogant finger wagging from a Hollywood movie star is the most diplomatic way of inspiring change from a regime where face-saving is inherent. So what do you think? Is it helpful if a celebrity pleads with you to part with your well earned to buy food and medicine for needy populations? Or has Mia got it right - we need to lobby the governments of the needy populations to bring about change.....or, are both approaches wrong? Do we need to have a serious rethink about how we INSPIRE actions needed to bring about LONG LASTING change. After all, everyone needs an incentive to change.