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.