iPolitics
Examining the conventional wisdom which underpins world order.
daryl.copeland
Exploring the Myths of International Relations: Three Deadly Disconnects?
Summer in Canada is a wonderful time to reflect.
In that spirit, I was intrigued by an article, entitled “Seven Myths About International Relations”, which appeared recently on the splash page of the Canadian International Council’s (CIC) web site. It is part of a new series being published under the theme Diplomacy and Duplicity: The Myths, Fictions and Outright Lies of International Politics.
I commend the CIC on this latest initiative. Over a few short years of existence, this organization has produced an impressive record of achievement. It has carried forward the work of its predecessor, the venerable, but perpetually vulnerable Canadian Institute of International Affairs, but has innovated, diversified, and reached out to new members and partners. Two years ago the CIC launched its comprehensive Open Canada report on possible new foreign policy directions, and in the interim have presented a steady stream of high quality commentary and analysis authored by the likes of Roland Paris, Jennifer Welsh, James Der Derian and many others. The Council doesn’t hesitate to address sensitive issues, such as what went wrong in Afghanistan, and it keeps the fresh content flowing.
Kudos.
It occurs to me that in this era of anti-government government, and with the continued downsizing of the state, Canada’s comparative advantage in thinking about the implications of a changing world may well be moving out of official Ottawa. With budgets at DFAIT, CIDA, IDRC and other international policy institutions under significant downward pressure, it is both refreshing and a great relief to see a civil society actor stepping up to the plate and helping to fill the civic gap created by a muzzled, cowed and receding public sector.
This country’s vibrant community of NGOs, universities, and think tanks could now be in a position to drive the international policy discussion and debate.
I certainly hope so.
But a closer consideration of just how those structural changes might play out is for another day… Back now to the CIC’s list.
In Defense of DFAIT: Why Diminished Diplomatic Capacity Damages Canadian Interests
These are not the best of days at DFAIT.
According to an article on p.1 of this week’s of Embassy magazine, Canada will be moving to a “hub and spoke” model for its diplomatic network in Europe, centralizing resources at a few larger missions while reducing the Canadian presence elsewhere in the region.
A box on p. 9 in the same edition reports that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will lose about $170 million from its budget over the next three years. As a result, and among other things, the Department will:
• Review Canada’s participation in some international organizations
• Close five US missions in Anchorage, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Raleigh-Durham, and one satellite office in Princeton
• Introduce five new regional clusters in the United States: West Coast, Midwest,Great Lakes, South East, North East, and the South Rocky Mountain corridor
• Phase out the international Canadian studies program
• Reduce the funding and geographic scope of the International Scholarships Program
• Change DFAIT’s domestic network to have five regional hubs (Vancouver, Calgary,Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax) and close offices in Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon,Winnipeg, St. John’s, Charlottetown, and Moncton
• Eliminate 35 Commerce Officer positions
• Reduce the vehicle fleet at missions
• Update allowances for diplomats
• Extend the length of postings
• Sell some official residences abroad
Working smarter?
Readers may well be thinking… Hub and spoke in the EU? A bit of trimming here and there?
Under the prevailing circumstances in public finance, these measures seem modest, sensible, and perhaps timely if not overdue.
Shrug.
With a few exceptions, that has certainly been the reaction across the Canadian mainstream.
As with so much received wisdom, however, a closer examination is necessary.
Re-branding Canada: From the Siege of Sarajevo to Rio Plus 20
iPolitics
From global Boy Scout to moralizing warrior nation – what a long, strange trip it’s been.
Re-Branding Canada: From the Siege of Sarajevo to Rio Plus 20
This spring marks the 20th anniversary of two international events of signal importance in the history of Canadian international policy – the start of the 44 month siege of Sarajevo (April 06) and the UN’s Rio Conference on Environment and Development, or Earth Summit (June 03-14).
I was reflecting on the significance of this pair of occasions a few weeks ago while participating in the Meseuro Foundation Workshop and the Dubrovnik Diplomatic Forum, two conferences sponsored by the EU, UN, and several universities. The geographic context was Euro-Mediterranean, and both events are part of a larger effort to avert a clash of civilizations and to bring peace, stability and prosperity to the region. Of special interest are the southern and eastern tiers, whose populations might otherwise be tempted to relocate north and west, en masse.
Following five days of discussions on “Diplomacy and the Intercultural Dialogue” in Dubrovnik, I used the opportunity to do some travelling in the Western Balkans, visiting the Adriatic island of Korcula, the birthplace of Marco Polo, as well as ancient Kotor, in Montenegro, and finally the still-troubled cities of Mostar, Trebinje, Stolac and Sarajevo in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Beautiful.
Beguiling.
Blood-soaked.
The Balkans.
Public Diplomacy and Branding, Part IV: Some Practical Implications
In the previous three entries in this series I have tried to compare and contrast various aspects of PD and branding – two related, but nonetheless distinct approaches to the management of a country’s international relations through public engagement, image projection and reputation management. In the last installment (Part III), I undertook to comment upon a central and abiding paradox which inevitably afflicts all forms of diplomacy.
Let’s begin with that.
Vitiated messaging
Diplomats, however well-intentioned, are hardly disinterested parties – they work for governments or international organizations and this can make them suspect from the start. The messenger can subvert the message.
Governments exist to defend and pursue national interests, to advocate policies and to promote values. In these respects they rely on the apparatus of the state, of which diplomats are an integral part. When members of civil society encounter diplomats, therefore, the encounter is not likely to be entirely unconditional, and this can give rise to suspicion and mistrust. Chances are, the diplomat, especially if he or she have initiated to exchange, will almost certainly be after something – an expression of support, a shift in position, a useful insight, a gem of intelligence. Of course there is nothing at all the matter with that. But it is not a neutral point of departure. Just as the best communications cannot compensate for flawed policy, no amount of active listening can overcome the handicap of seeking scripted outcomes or pre-ordained conclusions.
While this does not necessarily undermine or devalue the activity per se, it does leave open the possibility of eroding the integrity of the exchange, and in so doing could prejudice the chances of arriving at a mutually beneficial outcome.
For these reasons, the messenger, being somewhat suspect from the start, may vitiate the message – and the, quite possibly, the results.
Public Diplomacy and Branding, Part III: A Pair of Aces?
In a couple of recent postings I have tried to elaborate the notion of a nation brand, to identify some of the salient issues surrounding the relationship between public diplomacy and branding, and to illuminate the more subtle distinctions. In this entry, I would like to drill down further into each of these, and several related issues.
Branding guru Simon Anholt has developed a hexagonal model that sets out the principal elements of a nation’s brand, including tourism, exports, policies, investment and immigration, culture and heritage, and people. This has become the industry standard. While Simon and I concur on many points, we do not agree on everything covered in the continuing debate. For instance, as far back as 2006, he wrote me to say “I dispute… your contention that branding is fundamentally a monologue. The best brand theory – and the best brand practice – today sees brand as the common purpose or shared vision that unites businesses with their staff, suppliers and customers, and so is in every sense parallel to (e.g. the British Council’s insistence on) the mutuality of public and cultural diplomacy. A brand is also … as much an invitation to complain as it is a promise of quality, so even in that rather literal sense it must always be about two-way communication… Brand is very much more than ‘image’ and the communication, management or promotion of image. Brand strategy is almost synonymous with corporate strategy, and at least in theory, there is a parallel notion in nation branding. Most firms these days would describe their brand as their relationship with their market and their other stakeholders.”
My response? Let one hundred flowers bloom.
But when it comes time to pick the bouquet, it seems worth remembering that if branding is about selling dreams, public diplomacy is about sharing them.
Public Diplomacy, Branding and the Image of Nations, Part II: More of the Same, or Different?
USC/CPD Blog
PD and nation branding share many superficial attributes, but drilling down reveals that the differences outweigh the similarities.
Public Diplomacy, Branding and the Image of Nations, Part II: More of the Same, or Different?
One of the defining attributes of being in a centre of global commerce and culture is the feeling you get when walking down the sidewalks.
In London, I found the experience of strolling a few blocks from where I was staying to the downtown campus of UEA London, in large part along the fabled Brick Lane, to be a source of energy and inspiration.
Now back in Ottawa for a month, I find the contrast especially striking. Almost painful. The narrow, crumbling sidewalks along the anonymous streets in the Canadian capital’s exquisitely excrescent central business district seem to drain any joy or enthusiasm. With each step, you can feel the spirit ebbing.
Whereas London is a great place to be in the midst of, Ottawa is a great place to leave.
Fortunately, that is easily done, and its wonderful environs make the prospect irresistible.
As places, both London and Ottawa have brands. London is a world city and global network node, less an exemplar of things English or British than a vibrant cosmopolitan crossroads that just happens to be the capital of the UK.
Ottawa is a blandly pleasant frontier town and bureaucratic outpost on the fringe of the settled part of the North American continent.
All of which is to say that brands, not least because they exist mainly in the minds of the beholders, have personality and complexion. And on that note, I would like to return to, and weave further a few of the analytical threads comparing branding and public diplomacy (PD) first presented in Chapter 10 of Guerrilla Diplomacy.
Diplomacy still matters – but new training needed
Embassy
If provided with resources and training, diplomats can and should be restored as catalysts for imaginative strategic thinking.