ePolitix.com speaks to Europe minister Jim Murphy about the Foreign Office's new book on public diplomacy in a globalised world.
Question: Where did the idea for the book come from?
Jim Murphy: There was a review of the UK's public diplomacy policy by a gentleman called Lord Carter about two years' ago. It reflected that it was one of the most pre-eminent in the world but that it needed to change in a number of ways. One of the ways was to set up a thing called the public diplomacy board, which I chair.
There's the BBC world service, the British council, some external advisors: it’s really about bouncing ideas and thinking about what the UK can do to stay ahead on the debate on public diplomacy, and keep our diplomats the most informed and effective in the world. I thought that rather than just having a publication, we should have a conversation to give a greater profile to this innovate thinking on what modern public diplomacy is.
Question: How did you come to choose the authors in the book?
Murphy: This is a relatively niche area, and the folks in the book are amongst the world's pre eminent thinkers on public diplomacy, the internet, human behaviour, culture and public diplomacy technology; they're amongst the world's leaders.
Question: Can you expand on the "particular and contemporary factors" that you say have prompted the timing of the book?
Murphy: The argument we make is that the world has changed. Democracy is much more commonplace, and in many societies the nature of power has changed and fluctuated. More people have more access to power, and even in pure democracies the nature of power continues to shift with the internet, the demise of deference, the questioning nature of the public.
There is more democracy and a deeper democracy; there are multiple hands on various levers of power, all of that is one trend. The other trend is modern technology - the ability to communicate person to person. The third is the globalisation of culture, of travel, of interaction: There is an unprecedented opportunity for a public diplomacy perspective on this human contact.
That led to us to a conclusion that you can't buck any of these trends, and I think they are a remarkable set of opportunities. You can harness them for a public diplomacy purpose. government to government bilateralism will always be essential, but it has changed and it;s not sufficient.
Therefore with UK government engagement with other governments, UK government engagement with NGOs, with citizens overseas, with foreign publics, this modern public diplomacy is about saying you should continue to have very good relations with foreign governments, but we should develop a better relationship with foreign publics who are increasingly able to shift public opinion, government opinion and national opinion.
The additional component is that if we are going to find some global solutions to these great global problems like counter-terrorism and climate change, then solutions will rely on the actions of people in every corner of the world, who we will never met and know their names. So how do we influence them and how do we listen to them? These are some of the questions that are posed in the document.
Question: You also say that listening is key. Has this been lost sight of?
Murphy: I think, on occasion, it has been. One of the contributors in the book says communication should start with listening. In politics and public life, communication always starts with talking. On occasion we should start with listening.
If we want the citizens of other countries to change their behaviour or carbon footprint, then listening to them and how we can listen to them more and structure the architecture of an international deal on climate change so that it meets their ambitions, their behaviour and what they can change and how they can change. This listening point is absolutely essential.
The weakness in the past, on occasion, has been that we shout our messages ever more loudly in the false belief that people aren't hearing us. But they are hearing us. They just want engagement and not propagandising. That's an important point. In the past traditional public diplomacy has been confused with propaganda or with crude advertising. It's not advertising.
Question: In the book you quote an ambassador in the 1930s, Mr Kelly, who talks of the "pathetic fallacy of meeting the man in the street". How has the role of the ambassador changed?
Murphy: Mr Kelly's view is that it was a pathetic fallacy. My argument is that the pathetic fallacy of that generation is the strategic necessity of this generation: the engagement with people where they live, regardless of where. They increasingly have an influence in their government's polices and we should find ways of engaging with them. Some of this is already happening in the best of UK diplomacy – such as engagement with citizens, with NGOs – but this is best practice not common practice. It isn't universal.
But this publication isn't just for the UK. I launched this book in Washington and will send it to the European capitals too and a huge number of ambassadors are interested in it.
What we have done is set the big strategic question for the future of public diplomacy in the next decade. We have looked at some of the tentative answers for our diplomats, and it will mean greater flexibility and an ability to understand the nature of power in individual countries and individual states and countries and to be able to interact . There has to be a greater understanding of the theory of influence in each country. Our diplomatic effort should be focused on being part of that.
Question: What examples can you give?
Murphy: On the listening point, I would say that the FCO wouldn't, by itself, have acted on honour killings. We may have got to take action on this, but it was really from listening to people on the ground that we did.
It's the same with small arms control also. Or the Stern review, whereby the scientific evidence was clear, not universal, but clear. Stern is a phenomenal example of this modern diplomacy of both listening and then seeking to persuade other governments, and our politicians persuading other non government politicians in other countries who then, in turn, persuade their governments.
This can be a much more effective way. It's a more patient way, it's a less direct way, but it can be much more effective. It's an informal reach of intereste beyond government and can be important.
Question: How do you influence perceptions in the Islamic world?
Murphy: We haven't identified all the answers, but there is one excellent example. The British Council, rather than going as a white middle aged apparently Christian men and women - I'm not being critical; it's a brilliant organisation - or rather a minister like me. The British Council got Muslim photographers in the UK to record what it means to be a Muslim in Britain, then they took that on tour in different parts of the Arab world.
It was being Muslim in Britain - both good and bad. In general, the balance was positive, but it was good and bad. It was done in a creative way - photographers, rather than words, that type of public diplomacy. It was about what being a Muslim in Britain really is about. It was a great example.
Question: You already endured a struggle to convince people of the merits of further European integration, so why take on the battle to win the argument for globalisation?
Murphy: On balance, globalisation is a remarkable force for good, economically, culturally, politically, technologically. I know it is sometimes controversial, but the way it gets on top of you is if you try and shield yourself from it and deny its existence, or try and innoculate yourself against it.
So you can hide or engage. The government and countries that are most prepared to engage are the most successful. Economic nationalism and protectionsim are bad for your own country and for any country.
The pace of globalisation is unprecedented and set to quicken, and the UK has to be the most prepared for it, economically and politically. That's our challenge. It's about embracing globalisation and trying to shape it. If you embrace it you can shape it, if you ignore it, it can shape you.
This is a genuine and determined effort by the FCO to lead a world debate on where diplomacy goes next based on globalistion and we're really very excited about it. The Lisbon treaty thing I can now enjoy after the event, but this is something I am enjoying even before the event. It's a real contrast: the other was one was very important, but it was a rerun of decades long speeches and debates that everyone had heard before.
