Obama, Galtung and Bigger Picture Diplomacy

On 20 January 2008 I found myself dashing to a business meeting somewhere near the Marylebone Road in Central London. Tourists, newspaper salesmen and smokers jostled me as I paused to look at the time outside Baker Street Tube station. It was nearly five o'clock and I realised if I didn't get to a TV screen pretty soon I would miss the big event. I lunged across the street avoiding honking cars, black cabs and big red buses and dived into a bar. The Globe was full of quietly muttering patrons and a screen which hung above them showed a rather regal looking Barack Obama gracing the steps of the White House some three and a half thousand miles away. After a text message or two and some buying of wine, the meeting was reconvened and instead of talking business we raised a toast to the man who has provided hope to millions and changed the public perception of America almost overnight. Even the most stiff-upper-lipped Brits in the crowd clapped and cheered at the astonishing transformation in America's politics.

I barely had time to dry my eyes before we rushed off across town to the Palace of Westminster to listen to the words of another eminent speaker; Johan Galtung was talking at the All Party Parliamentary Group for Conflict Issues and Obama had made us disrespectfully late.

In the field I work in, Galtung is a legend. The 78 year old Norwegian socialist is the grandfather of peace studies and has mediated in over 40 conflicts around the world. He has been a peace activist most of his life – in his teens he was sent to prison for insisting that he be engaged in peace making activities rather than serving in the military. As a former diplomat I was interested in Galtung’s take on diplomacy, but a little disappointed by his view on the effectiveness of diplomats, "a diplomat has as his priority the promotion of his national interests", he snapped, revealing perhaps the depths of his unfortunate experiences with diplomatic activity (or lack of it) over the years. Well, I mused, of course promotion of national interests is one of the functions of a diplomat, but using Galtung's own Transcend method (where everyone feels like a winner when a conflict is resolved) it is quite clear to me that the forward thinking diplomats of today understand that a nation’s interests are often best served by looking at the bigger picture. The new slogan of the British Foreign Office is "Better world, Better Britain" – the order of which demonstrates the logical priority. Whether it is applied in practice and whether diplomats of countries like Britain are the ones to deliver world peace is another thing, but the underlying ethos is there. I did agree with Galtung when he said we were getting into a world where "the old nation diplomats have less and less importance.” But, so long as we are all facing in the right direction, we can each play our part.

Although shamefully tipsy and tardy, I am not too annoyed with myself for missing the beginning of Galtung to witness the beginning of a new president. I like to think that Obama is not simply about rhetoric and that as one of the most powerful men in the world he will make a difference, not just in his own homeland. Outlawing torture, and closing the Guantánamo detention facility is a huge signal to those inside and outside of America. In December last year Obama vowed to renew American diplomacy - speaking at the national-security news conference in Chicago he talked of "the fundamental reality that in the 21st century, our destiny is shared with the world" – a clear challenge to Galtung's perhaps tarnished view. So, I raise my glass in the hope that new leaders and old wisdom can come together to realise that bigger picture diplomacy serves everyone's interests.

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.

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.