Paving the way for citizen diplomacy

The old stereotype of diplomacy is that of an elderly and dignified gentleman who is engaged in negotiations with men of similar calibre. Diplomacy is not just negotiations and secret disclosures but a formal representation of a recognised nation. Back before globalisation, sending diplomatic envoys to foreign lands was the only way to ensure international engagement at a face-to-face level. Nowadays, the era of the internet, satellite TV and cheap flights has made it easier for people to become more mobile than ever.


Students are no longer restricted to undertake studies in their own countries but are encouraged to explore the language, culture and activities of other nations. In fact, foreign governments everywhere are using cultural exchange programmes to engage individual citizens to promote cross-cultural knowledge and understanding with people of other countries. This concept is known as ‘citizen diplomacy’ and it is a developing phenomenon that is being used to complement official diplomacy.

Think of the last time you travelled abroad. What was the first question you were asked by local people? If the answer is, “Where do you come from?”, then you were unofficially engaging yourself as a representative of your country. Citizen diplomacy is an emerging concept which suggests that individuals have the right to engage in foreign relations.

In a society where cheap flights and travel information are abundant, it has become easier for ordinary citizens to engage with the rest of the world on a more personal level. An increase in human mobility has meant that we have become less dependent on diplomats to tell us what to expect of foreign countries and are better informed through our own experiences.

Travellers tend to be more empathetic and can help to change the image and perception of their country, simply by engaging with local people on a personal and emotional level. Face-to-face contact is a powerful tool of communication that brings credibility and ordinary citizens are more likely to sell a positive image than a government broadcast.

Governments understand this power and have demonstrated the force of citizen diplomacy through constructed programmes. Through exchange programmes for example, citizen diplomats are able to cultivate relationships with every country. At a university setting, it is no accident that you are likely to meet citizens of every continent. The visa process is lenient for international students looking to study in another country as it means increasing capacity to foster common value and mutual national interest.

Student exchange programmes epitomise the concept of citizen diplomacy. The Japanese government, for example, uses its JET Programme (Japanese Exchange and Teaching) to advance and promote international exchange and respect between Japan and other nations. JET is popular amongst international students as it is one of the easiest routes in obtaining a work visa in a country that is otherwise shut to foreign workers. As a programme backed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, JET helps to promote and establish Japan as a nation that is open to all foreigners.

Similarly, the American summer scheme Camp America is advertised at secondary schools across the United Kingdom to strengthen the US-Anglo special relationship. By attracting British students to an American exchange programme, British students learn to dismiss any anti-American sentiment they may have by increasing cross-cultural understanding and knowledge of real Americans they work with. In July 2011, the British government has also extended a bid to attract 10,000 Brazilian students into British universities to strengthen diplomatic ties with Brazil, whose economic strength is rapidly increasing.

Citizen diplomacy is not only demonstrated by individuals but is also practiced by non-government organisations too. For instance, American NGO World Meets US involves itself in citizen-level diplomacy by translating foreign articles to connect Americans with the rest of the world and informing them about global perceptions of their nation. Likewise, independent diplomatic agency Grassroot Diplomat makes its mission to bridge the gap between civil society and political leaders by connecting both groups of any nation for one joint cause.

Despite the power of citizen diplomacy, it may not always be a force for good. According to online travel provider Expedia, foreigners have labelled Britons as the worst tourists abroad. As a nation that has a history of colonialism, it is detrimental to Britain’s image that their citizens make the least effort to speak the local dialect and can be disrespectful to a foreign environment when abroad. Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi long stated that tourism could be useful to boost the image of her country but added a note of caution to how they could use the information they learn about. In her speech, Suu Kyi stated that “Tourists have to be careful not to deceive themselves; if they want to see the country, they can find all sorts of excuses for doing so…but what they have to understand is how far their visits really go to help the people”. With all this said, it is important for tourists and students alike to quietly observe and absorb the culture and norms of a foreign society they have decided to visit to bring about mutual respect and understanding.

As official envoys for their country, diplomats are controlled seekers of information and have special training to collect, transform and utilise information into intelligence sources. As ordinary citizens, information that travellers obtain tends to be linked to their own experiences and emotion, and may not necessarily reflect well for the country they visited. Diplomacy is a delicate art of persuasion, negotiation and building ties and it has become more vital than ever for governments to rely on their citizens to establish better links with foreign allies. So the next time you meet a foreign visitor or you travel to a new destination, think of how your words and actions influence the image of the country you are from.


*Article published in www.emergingstudents.com 

Any possibility: Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone

In early October 2011, Talyn Rahman-Figueroa and selected young people from around the UK were invited to discuss the issue of a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Counter Proliferation department. Ever since President Obama’s Prague speech nearly two and a half years ago, it seems that the momentum on the talks of nuclear non-proliferation has dropped and is yet to gain full political approval. Negotiations on the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is essential to ensure that all signatories of the NPT keep to their promise and devise a feedback system to hold nations accountable if they were to break their treaty obligation.

Certainly, the economic crisis and many natural disasters have caused disruptions in essential political input since the US-Russia agreement back in 2010 and this is cause for great concern. We have seen increasing assets of nuclear capability in China, India, Pakistan and Israel, and there is no telling what Iran and North Korea’s plans are after breaking out of their treaty obligation. With the ever looming climate change crisis, the world has seen an increase in nuclear programme capabilities for the purpose of civil nuclear power. It is disconcerting that an increase in nuclear civil power overlooks long-term problems of nuclear waste control and human health mutilation due to the rise in nuclear radiation omitting into the atmosphere.

The NPT is the cornerstone in keeping the world free and reducing nuclear weapons. Political decision-makers need to work together - not for national interest but the interest of its people. In order to make progress, there must be a willingness to link other international issues with the topic of non-proliferation and this includes keeping negotiations open to Israel and reluctant Arab states that are not NPT signatories. Iran is depicted as a destabilising nation in the region due to their lack of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as Iran’s lack of security on civil nuclear assurances. Nonetheless, it is no good to isolate one nation on its nuclear efforts without collaborative effort with its neighbours and allies. Negotiations must be kept open between all neighbours that may be affected by the decision of one rogue state.

Along with Iran, it is vital that the United Nations find a way around Pakistan’s roadblock on the nuclear fissile material cut-off treaty for the good of mankind. The image of nuclear weapons as a power status needs to change as a means to avoid another Japanese tragedy and political decision-makers must look towards more sustainable solutions to combat climate change without falling to the mercy of corporate lobbyists.

On October 26 2011, Ms Setsuko Thurlow – a survivor from the Hiroshima A-bomb tragedy – delivered a powerful speech to the First Committee of the UN General Assembly as a reminder of how important it is to create a nuclear-free world. Here is an excerpt of her speech:

“On August 6, 1945, as a 13 year-old grade 8 student in the Student Mobilization Program I was with about 30 other girls working at the Army headquarters as a decoding assistant. The building was 1.8 km from the hypo-centre. At 8:15 a.m., the moment I saw a brilliant bluish-white flash outside the window, I remember having the sensation of floating in the air. As I regained consciousness in the silence and the darkness, I found myself pinned by the ruins of the collapsed building. I could not move, and I knew I was faced with death. I began to hear my classmates’ faint cries, “Mother, help me”, “God, help me”… Most of my classmates who were with me in the same room were burned alive.

… I looked around. Although it was morning, it was dark as twilight, with dust and smoke rising in the air. I saw streams of ghostly figures, slowly shuffling from the centre of the city towards the nearby hills. They were naked and tattered, bleeding, burned, blackened and swollen. Parts of their bodies were missing, flesh and skin hanging from their bones, some with their eyeballs hanging in their hands, and some with their stomachs burst open, with intestines hanging out.

…We did not see any doctors or nurses. When darkness fell, we sat on the hillside and all night watched the entire city burn, numbed by the massive and grotesque scale of death and suffering we had witnessed.

Thus, my beloved city of Hiroshima suddenly became desolation, with heaps of ash and rubble, skeletons and blackened corpses. Its population of 360,000, most of whom were non-combatant women, children, and elderly, became victims of the indiscriminate massacre of the atomic bombing. By the end of 1945 approximately 140,000 had perished. As of the present day, at least 260,000 have perished because of the effects of the blast, heat, and radiation. My own age group of over 8,000 grade 7 and 8 students from all the high schools in the city were engaged in clearing fire lanes in the centre of the city. Many of them were killed instantly by the heat of 4,000 degrees Celsius. Radiation, the unique characteristic of the atomic bombing, affected people in mysterious and random ways, with some dying immediately, and others weeks, months, or years later by the delayed effects, and radiation is still killing survivors today, 66 years later. 

…We became convinced that no human being should ever have to repeat our experience of inhumanity, illegality, immorality and cruelty of an atomic bombing, and that our mission was to warn the world about the threat of this ultimate evil. We believe that humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist, and for the past several decades we have been speaking out around the world for the total abolition of nuclear weapons, as the only path to security and the preservation of the human community and civilization for future generations.”

Ms Thurlow is right. No human should ever repeat this cruel and illegal war but powerful leaders are yet to listen and accept the cries of billions pleading for peace and life. As a group of young people invited to discuss this important matter at the Foreign Office, we came to the conclusion that peace is a prerequisite to any negotiation and all nations in the Middle East should be grouped like the African Union and engage in quarterly negotiation rounds to smooth over regional disputes that have been ongoing for decades. 

After exploring ideas on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, the FCO's Counter Proliferation team will be feeding contributions made by young people from the roundtable into government policy discussions.

Call for Applications: Corporate Social Responsibility Programme specifically designed for underfunded NGOs and corporate partners

The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programme is a new initiative designed by Grassroot Diplomat to engage corporations in building sustainable and meaningful relationship with grassroots organisations. Grassroot Diplomat is calling for applications from underfunded NGOs and youth networks requiring policy research and development of projects. Grassroot Diplomat aims to select clients that are suffering from financial hardship but require independent diplomatic research assistance in their policy-related project. All projects under this programme will be expected to be paid for by corporate partners engaged in CSR.

Clients will receive:

- free assistance with research and development

- access to influential decision-makers

- contacts with reputable and well-known company

- full sponsorship that will cover cost of service required by Grassroot Diplomat

- 25% donation to sustain project

Corporations will:

- pay the full sponsorship fee

- gain significant access to influential members of government

- increase its reputation with consumers

- be provided with human interest PR stories and marketing opportunities to networks

- leverage its market in the diplomatic and government sector

For more information, please visit: www.grassrootdiplomat.org/csrprogramme

This programme is opened to all types of businesses looking to further their CSR portfolio. However, the programme is limited to the number of clients it can take. You may only apply if you meet the eligibility criteria. You may wish to refer to services provided by Grassroot Diplomat: www.grassrootdiplomat.org/services

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

This programme is strictly available to clients who are undergoing financial hardship. We are only able to take on clients who require assistance on the growth and development of a project that is relevant to the mission of Grassroot Diplomat. Your project must:

•              be based related to policy (e.g. human rights, peace and security, health, migration… etc.)

•              aim to make a positive impact to society

•              not be led by a government institution or official

•              not be served as a financial instrument for personal gain

•              be independent of any arms trade, defence proliferation or profiteering motive

•              not be political in nature

•              not discriminate against age, race, gender, sex or religion

•              require research, development or diplomatic engagement provided by Grassroot Diplomat

How to join the programme

If you feel that your project is eligible for this programme, please send your project outline to: info@grassrootdiplomat.org answering the following questions:

•              Name and mission of organisation

•              Objective and outcome of project

•              Who will the project benefit?

•              Why do you need assistance of Grassroot Diplomat and which service are you interested in?

•              How will you assist your corporate sponsor?

•              How will you promote your project after this programme ends?

•              Are you engaged with any partners? If not, which organisations would you wish to collaborate with?

•              Please provide a financial statement of your organisation

Due to the popularity of this programme, all clients are asked to pay a refundable deposit of £300 ($480 USD) to secure their place.

Please note: It may take up to 12 months to secure a corporate sponsor for your project. In the unlikely event of not finding a corporate match, the deposit will be returned to you in full. Should your project be chosen, Grassroot Diplomat will keep the deposit and donate 25% of the sponsorship fee to your project.

Interview with the Diplomatic Academy of Chile

Diplomacy in Chile is perceived by the public as an eldery dignified gentleman who is engaged in dark  backroom negotiations with others like him. Diplomacy is much more than negotiations and has certainly moved away from this stereotype, but very little is known about the conduct of diplomacy to ordinary citizens in Latin America.

As part of their public diplomacy agenda, the Chilean government has authorised the Diplomatic Academy of Chile to engage in dialogue with leaders of public diplomacy, and it was a great honour for Grassroot Diplomat to be invited for an interview.

On 2nd September 2011, Director of Grassroot Diplomat Talyn Rahman-Figueroa was invited to a podcast interview to learn more about the conducts of public diplomacy in the Western world.  The interview was conducted by journalist Raimundo Gregoire based in Morocco. Here is the transcript of the interview.


Diplomatic Academy of Chile: What do you think about Public Diplomacy 2.0? Do you think that the government should put more emphasis in this new type of diplomacy?


Talyn Rahman-Figueroa: By public diplomacy 2.0, I believe you mean the use of diplomacy in the internet and social media age. Well, in the traditional sense, diplomacy has actively engaged one government with another. In traditional diplomacy, embassy officials will represent their government in a host country by maintaining relations and conducting business with the officials of the host government.

Public diplomacy, from my point of view, engages many diverse non-government elements of society, which brings the concept of diplomacy to a wider arena that is transparent and has better reach to the wider public.

I know diplomacy has a stereotype of being clandestine and highly elite, but public diplomacy will help to change the image of diplomacy in being more open about its engagements to the wider public and actually liaising with ordinary citizens. I do think governments need to try harder in engaging actively with the citizens they represent – but how much public diplomacy can do in reaching that objective, hmmmm - that’s questionable, but a good start nonetheless!

DAC: Are diplomats and governments well prepared in order to work in Public Diplomacy 2.0? Do you think that diplomats, politicians and governments really know what Public Diplomacy 2.0 is?

TRF: I’ll answer the second question first. A colleague of mine from the Diplomatic Academy of London did a study on the image of public diplomacy in Germany, and I remember her telling me that the diplomats in her country seemed unaware of what public diplomacy was. If diplomats don’t know what public diplomacy is, then how are embassies supposed to drive the concept of public diplomacy without guidance? It’s not going to work. There is a possibility that the term ‘public diplomacy’ will remain a buzz word unless diplomats and governments define exactly what public diplomacy is and how to utilise it.


Of course technology has helped to shape the modern world and in order for diplomats to be effective in a society where information is opulent, the practice of diplomacy must also embrace new media for the purpose of public diplomacy. However, I have noticed that governments are very awkwardly moving into the public diplomacy realm, sometimes unsure of how to use technology to support objectives of national interest for many reasons. Perhaps one way is for government officials to be fully informed of technological change and know-how so that they are prepared to work in public diplomacy. If governments are the last group to pick up Twitter and social media, then they won’t be very effective in influencing policy and shaping our future.

DAC: What about the mass audience, do they really know about Public Diplomacy 2.0? Is it important that they can know what it means or it's just an issue for diplomats, politicians and governments?

TRF: I think it’s fair to say that the general audience don’t even know what diplomacy is, which is why the very concept of ‘public diplomacy’ should be considered important. If embassies and governments are more open with what diplomats are doing for the good of the nation, people will become more aware of how our countries are being represented abroad and how ordinary citizens can rely on embassy officials when they are in a foreign country.

The only time a citizen will ever consider going to an embassy is if they are in some sort of legal trouble in a foreign country. Personally, I would go to a foreign embassy in London to learn more about another country that I have never visited before simply because I view these diplomats as experts of their country and it is important to acknowledge that. We need to ensure that diplomacy is much more than just national representation – it is about sharing culture, languages, cuisines, history – every country in the world have these things in common. Public diplomacy is that key to exploring the world of diplomacy from an accessible medium for everyone to enjoy.

DAC: Would you like to talk about good and bad examples about the use of Public Diplomacy 2.0 in governments and diplomatic bodies?


TRF: I think that public diplomacy is a new concept that many governments and diplomatic bodies are struggling to define, so it would be difficult to provide a solid example, good or bad. To accommodate the popular shift of social media, governments are now trying to shift their outreach campaigns to Facebook, Twitter, and blogs, but I’m unsure as to how much this is changing the image of diplomacy. I guess it’s too early to tell. But I’ve noticed that the British government is becoming much more open about exemplifying how the UK is operating in countries like Afghanistan, Libya, and other parts of the Middle East through Twitter feeds and interactive web features such as YouTube, often posting comments from our Foreign Secretary on current political issues that everyone seems to be talking about. Constant Tweets from the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office shows that the UK is active in hot spot areas and are actively working with other countries to reduce tension. This is a good first step because public diplomacy opens up to non-governmental organisations and individuals that have traditionally been left out of the conversation.

I guess a bad example of public diplomacy would be the Wikileaks fiasco in November 2010, where many official and private diplomatic cables were unofficially published online. This was a major breach of trust and caused many problems and unnecessary embarrassment between nations. I don’t think it is necessary for everything to be made open to the public domain. We’re currently suffering from information overload, so I do think it is wise to be strategic on what information is shared to the public and leave other information private and between officials only.

DAC: What do you think about concepts such as e-government and open-government? 


TRF: I’m finding it very hard not to say that they aren’t just buzz words.

E-government is short for electronic government which is a form of digital interaction I guess between a government and its citizens through the use of the internet and the World Wide Web. Open government, in my opinion, is exactly what the title says – the government being open and breaking down the culture of secrecy by sharing information online with the public. These are necessary steps and of course such openness can help analysts, NGOs and academics do their job. 

In the UK we have something called the Freedom of Information Act which means that the public can request any official information from the government to be released to them. This is certainly a form of open-government that the British government had introduced back in the year 2000 and it is something that other governments should perhaps consider. 

DAC: What are the advantages and disadvantages of using social media in diplomacy, policies and governments?

TRF: I think social media is a demon and a blessing for diplomacy. It is a demon because ordinary citizens now have the power to post real time to a worldwide audience even before local or national authorities know about it. 

The London riot is a good example of this. Using social media, disgruntled young people planned areas in which they would start a riot and called upon other young people to join them. Unfortunately local authorities in the UK were slow to pick up on this ‘open’ information and failed to deal with the riots as effectively as those who follow social media. 

Even though social media has opened up dialogue, tracking this vast amount of information has become difficult and many wonder whether diplomats are becoming redundant in their field, considering that diplomats are traditionally relied upon for collecting information and forwarding this to the elite. I don’t think that social media makes diplomacy redundant because diplomacy, and governance for that matter, still operates within an elite garden where ordinary citizens have no access to, and I doubt that Heads of States and royal figures will spend their time Tweeting and reading information from this social media avenue before speaking to their own designated representatives first. 

On the other hand, social media has become an effective tool for officials to use to engage with audiences from around the world. During his president candidacy, Barack Obama used social media to tap into the hidden market to engage voters with his policies and personality. This method of public interaction was truly innovative, particularly in politics and people felt as though Mr Obama was speaking to individuals directly. People who were using social media were – for the first time- able to personally connect with an elite figure and no longer felt alienated from the political discussion. I think that is quite revolutionary. 

DAC: How do you see Public Diplomacy in the next 10 or 20 years? How do you imagine world diplomacy in the future?

TRF: One of two things will happen. Either Public Diplomacy will change the face of diplomacy, or nothing will change at all. If people cared about something, they will get involved, but if they cannot make the connection between issues and how it affects their personal life, people will take no interest in the issue at all. 

I think Public Diplomacy is an area where people take very little interest in because authorities have failed to make a personal connection between the lives of ordinary citizens, and the way in which diplomats operate. You may say that diplomats are essential in driving the economy of our country because they secure international policies and trading agreements with countries who buy goods from our country, but as an ordinary citizen, people cannot see how a diplomat negotiating a treaty helps them bring food to their table. For Public Diplomacy to make an impact on ordinary citizens, there must be a common link between the two, and non-government organisations and charities, such as the Red Cross and Save the Children, are good at doing that because they compare the lives of ordinary citizens, who have clean running water and strong laws, against a country who still does not have a water irrigation system that produces clean water and has weak laws that ensure basic human rights of its citizens. 

In reference to your second question, I imagine world diplomacy to take into consideration the work of grassroots organisations and individuals who dedicate all of their free time to make a world a better place. There isn’t enough knowledge sharing between political leaders and civil society, and as a Grassroot Diplomat, I have made it my mission to close that gap. I believe that NGOs have a wealth of knowledge and expertise in areas that governments are craving for. If there was better communication and interaction between the two, I think the government can save themselves a lot of time and taxpayers money spent on research and development in policy and strategy planning. Great work is being done already by people who have a passion in the area they have dedicated their lives to and I think more needs to be done to acknowledge that. 

DAC: What can you say about United Kingdom policies in Public Diplomacy, e-government, etc? 

TRF: The UK government is quite advanced in its Public Diplomacy policies compared to many other countries. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has its own Digital Diplomacy department as part of its Public Diplomacy initiative and is actively involved in using social media to influence and engage the general public in policy affairs and providing useful travel information as well. 

The FCO understands the 24 hour news culture that our generation has become used to and utilises social media to ensure that there is a constant flow of information and dialogue from audiences around the world. Actually I think the UK is stepping up its game now in its public diplomacy strategy because of the recent Royal Wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton, the 2012 Olympic Games which will be held in London next year, and the bid to back England’s World Cup tournament for 2018. As you can imagine, sports and culture is a huge part of public diplomacy as it helps to transcend cultural differences and brings people together, and considering Britain’s diverse society, the government recognises Public Diplomacy as an important element of engaging like-minded audiences and bringing people closer together. I think South Africa was very quick to pick up its pace on its Public Diplomacy initiative having hosted the African Cup of Nations in 1996, the Cricket World Cup in 2003, the Rugby World Cup in 2007, and more recently the FIFA World Cup in 2010. Sports diplomacy is a powerful element of Public Diplomacy and diplomats, governments and embassies work very hard to ensure that security is heightened to reduce tension and trouble during such large events.

DAC: In few words, could you describe how has been the diplomacy of: EU, EE.UU. Israel, Palestina, Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America?

TRF: That’s a lot of countries to describe in a few words and in this short time, I will only mention a few that I am aware of. 

Even though diplomacy is about representing ones country and interest abroad, what exactly that national interest is can define the way in which diplomacy is practiced by different countries. In countries like China, India and Japan, trade and economics is the most influential diplomatic route for them to build relationships with other countries. For example, countries like the US and the UK will want remain good allies with Japan and China because of export and trading links developed between them. 

In regards to Latin America, I think there is now a high level of consciousness and awareness of how important the issue of environmental diplomacy is, both nationally and internationally for Latin America, especially after the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and more recently the Climate Change COP16 summit held in Mexico last year. Such events has served as a benchmark for great climate diplomacy between Latin America and global partners like South Africa, the US and Japan in conveying the urgency of the environmental issue. 

I know that the African Union as a continental diplomatic body is very vocal in issues that directly affects African nations and has strong solidarity in international summits and meetings which make them a force to be reckoned with. Unfortunately, I have not seen the same for groups like ASEAN, which is the Association of Southeast Asian Networks. They have been quiet during climate change negotiations, have not been vocal to protect neighbours like Burma and need to work harder in implementing human rights policies. 

DAC: And what about the diplomacy in the actual changes in the Arab countries?

TRF: I don’t have much knowledge about the diplomacy in Arab countries but I know that the US and the UK have actively been trying very hard to use Public Diplomacy as a means to win the hearts and minds of the Arab and Muslim World through 2.0 medium, particularly after the war on Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan. Western powers believe that public diplomacy has the potential to win over the war on terror and is necessary to breakdown stereotypes often created and spiralled out of control by the media. So, public diplomacy is good for both Western and Arab nations. Open communication can show that Americans are tolerant to the governance of Arab nations and are willing to listen and co-operate with non-Israeli allies, just as Arab nations can demystify  the ugly view that Muslims are terrorists and believe in the Holy War. 

DAC: What about the issue with Turkey?

TRF: Well, when I think of Turkey, I think of its membership candidacy with the European Union. As you may know, the European Union is an influential diplomatic body which has great authority in influencing international policies of its member states. Turkey has been a candidate to the join the EU for quite some time now, but the membership bid has been a controversial issue for them. A criterion that all member states must satisfy in order to be admitted into the EU is that the country must be in a position to implement all of the EU’s laws and regulations. This includes opening up trading routes such as air and naval passages to other EU members.

The problem with Turkey is that it refuses to officially recognise Cyprus as a nation and I would like to remind you that Cyprus has been a member of the EU since 2004. Turkey's non-recognition of Cyprus has led to complications within the Customs Union because under this agreement which Turkey has already signed, Turkey is obliged to open its ports to Cypriot planes and vessels. I think the European Union will certainly benefit from Turkey as a member especially in light of the economic crisis - Turkey has an accelerated rate of economic development and can drive economic growth for the EU in whole, particularly after the financial crash of Ireland and Greece, but the EU cannot and will not accept Turkey if it continues to ignore Cyprus. 

DAC: Finally, I would like that you explain what is Grassroot? 

TRF: Grassroot is a movement and solidarity of people joined for political causes. This movement exists because there is a wide gap between ordinary citizens and political leaders which is the result of many demonstrations, revolts and unrest in countries across the world. The lack of understanding of the needs of citizens from government is a root cause of several key social problems that are current in the UK. The government insist that they are listening to its people, but as the London riots have proven, young people feel marginalised and invisible in British society and felt they had no other way to divulge their frustration to a lack of job, education and poverty alleviation other than to violently revolt and participate in appalling criminal acts. 

My company, Grassroot Diplomat, recognises and understands the gap between civil society and political leaders, and as a political consultation group, we provide recommendations to diplomats, governments, non-government organisations and individuals on how to strengthen their mission, better reach their target audience and build partnerships in closing the communication gap. We help groups and individuals who are looking to reach high level decision makers and institutions like the United Nations to develop their project, particularly with those working in policy and grassroots projects. Political systems urgently requires deep transformation and Grassroot Diplomat aims to deliver solutions in partnering non-government groups with official government bodies and be open to public diplomacy avenues. 

DAC: Which are the main goals and risks of your project?

TRF: Not all of the projects that Grassroot Diplomat takes on can be taken seriously by leading multilateral organisations, not because the project isn’t important but it is a matter of prioritisation. One day climate change may be the most important political agenda, which will be great for an organisation looking to grow its project on algae biodiversity for example, but if the political agenda should suddenly shift to the economic crisis this will threaten the relevance of the biodiversity project. The way I like to tackle such risks is to find direct links to current political agendas to ensure that the projects we work on for clients are as close to being relevant to the current political agenda as possible so that our clients are moving forward with their project and are able to find at least one influential decision-maker who will consider looking at their project in more detail. 

I understand that there is always going to be conflicts of interests in what we do, and I am not going to pretend that it is easy to bridge the gap between civil society and political leaders but as long as we try hard in making this a reality for our clients, we will continue to achieve our mission in bridging that communication gap. 

No cake for the Working Class

I just finished baking my “friendship cake” as passed on to me by my best friend last week and as I stirred the remaining batter into the greasy pan, I was outraged by the series of police sirens that wailed down the street into Stratford, East London. London is bracing itself for one of the worst riots and it all began after a man was shot by armed police yesterday. A second riot kicked off later this afternoon as a young woman claimed to have been assaulted by a police officer. Police cars, buildings and public transports have been set alight by disgruntled youths, and ordinary citizens have turned their hands to crime, breaking through window shops to loot everyday goods that are otherwise affordable. While an exemplary modern city that attracts thousands of foreign visitors, London is just another illustration of the unsaid divide.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg promised to put aside their party differences when the Coalition Government was formed but all we have seen is the Tories strangled hold on its power over the Liberal Democrats. In April 2010 Nick Clegg warned that Tory cuts would lead to riots. Now he's a Tory Minister himself he sees no connection. People are angry with the growing gap between the treatment of the rich and the poor. In the news, police and politicians blame criminal thugs and undisciplined youths for the violence that London is experiencing but the real damage was done when the government implemented its dividing policies upon the British people. There are no jobs, education is three times as expensive and social welfare has taken a backseat in the political hub, it is no wonder that the youth – once again – are revolting for change.

Development begins with the nurturing of young minds but when young people are not given the chance to thrive, they will turn their hands to areas that may otherwise seem illicit. How are parents supposed to support their children through school when the welfare system is riddled with heavy bureaucracy that even an educated person struggles to worm through? How can a young couple be expected to start their life when jobs are sparse and the price tags on homes are beyond reach? How is the government expected to understand social problems when politicians keep themselves so out of reach from ordinary citizens that they no longer know what is real? The divide is no longer a gap but a valley filled with the lost and disenchanted. And this divide is appearing in almost every country as we witnessed in the United States and the Middle East.

Grassroot politics is required at a time when grassroots movements are growing. A new system of governance needs to be administered where people from diverse backgrounds, beliefs and social orientation need to be pulled together to form a united understanding to the unsaid divide. It is no longer acceptable that inner city families and young people are expected to keep to their side of town. Government officials need to take with them a thick pad of paper and pen, open up their ears to all the voices that are screaming around them and be brave on taking on board policy changes from the ground. Politics should never be about party interests. It should always, and remain to be, about the people it promised to take care of. Maybe politicians should cut through the riot with a friendship cake. 

Translating Policy into Practice

Back in March 2011, the Gender Action for Peace and Security (GAPS) held an interesting event on Women, Peace and Security. The event looked into translating policy into practice based on the book edited by Dr. Karen Barnes, Eka Ipke, Njoki Wamai and Dr. Funmi Olonisakin and emphasising how turning concepts into reality is harder to do after its inception. A former diplomat once said that “policies are like fashions - they come and go.” If so, then what is the point of negotiating a policy if its implementation is weak and ineffective? Organisations like GAPS exist to keep the spirit of certain policies alive but we must unite the work of diplomacy, grassroots and policy-makers in order to generate new insights and remove barriers to effectiveness.

The purpose of the event was to reflect on the strength of the UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which was the first global resolution that took into account the role of women in peace and security issues. More than ten years since its creation, the resolution is still struggling to make a full impact in many countries and one of the problems is the lack of monitoring and accountability made by the state. Policies, for the most part, are created for change but for change to appear there must be a willingness to change behaviour.  Much of this change must be tackled and mobilised on the ground but those in powerful positions have the tools and influence to make change a reality. Translating policy into practice is subject to multiple layers of implementation and each layer may challenge the effectiveness of this process. For instance, countries and organisations must challenge the status quo so that policies are incorporated in agendas and is embedded within the social norm for any change to take into effect. There may be a problem of power distribution, matters of corruption over privileges or lack of political will for change.

Grassroot Diplomat recommends that diplomats tap into local NGO expertise and support them to upscale their efforts. This is to ensure that there is easy flow of information between ground mobilisation and top policy-makers and to avoid an overlap of reoccurring mistakes. We could also draw lessons from other countries to reflect on why other countries under-perform when implementing policy.

Here are a few reasons why policies fail and challenges in implementing policies effectively:

Why Policies Fail

1. No clear link between project and strategic priorities

2. Lack of top level ownership and leadership

3. Lack of effective stakeholder engagement

4. Project and risk management not applied

5. Poor senior level understanding of supply industry

6. Evaluation driven by price not long term value

7. Implementation not broken into manageable steps

8. Inadequate resources and skills to deliver

Why Policies Aren’t Put Into Practice

1. An inadequate understanding of the issues to be addressed  

2. Lack of clear ownership and well-focused leadership

3. Failure to define appropriate measures of success

4. An inadequate analysis of changes in the external environment

5. Lack of realism about how the policy will work in practice 

6. Failure to secure buy-in from those affected and those responsible for service delivery

7. Failure to secure or develop the capacity and capability for successful delivery

8. Failure to identify and manage risks and plan for unforeseen events

9. Failure to establish an effective framework for monitoring and evaluating performance

10. Poor management of the policy making process itself 

Diplomatic Loyalties

Imagine this. You are a diplomat representing your birth country, but your heritage lies with two other states from your parents and you are married to a non-native national. You are proud of your heritage, you love your family, and you are a strong supporter of the country you declared yourself to. One day, your country starts a fight with your partner's country, and you have to lead the negotiations which may split the country, create political refugees, and potentially turn to war. Where does your loyalty lie?

This is quite an intricate question that many diplomats have to struggle with. As a British woman from Bangladeshi origin married to an American, I wonder what I would do in that situation and find myself thinking hard for quite some time in silence. Of course, my obligation would be to my country but this would lead problems within my personal life too. How does one separate such loyalty? This thought process was spurred on by an interesting article I found written by former UK Ambassador Charles Crawford, published in the June 2011 edition of Diplomat, which I have abridged and edited below to share with you. I feel that I will need to clarify my self-identity and fully prepare myself into the diplomatic world where my personal and professional loyalty may one day conflict.

In his article, Charles Crawford highlighted the case of Anwar Choudhury, a senior British diplomat of Bangladeshi origin who joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office after working for the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Office. He served as High Commissioner to Bangladesh but was subjected to an attempted assassination in 2004 by local extremists enraged by Mr Choudhury's sense of 'belonging' to the UK.

Crawford then highlighted how "the double agent who did the most damage to British intelligence operations was George Blake, another person with ambiguous private loyalties: his mother was Dutch, his father a naturalised British subject of Turkish/Jewish origin. Blake ruthlessly betrayed dozens of agents who were working for the UK against the Soviet Union, many of whom were believed to have been executed. Sentenced to 42 years imprisonment for his treasonable activities, Blake famously escaped from prison in 1966 and made his way to Moscow where he lived in comfort and honour. He insisted that he had never felt British: 'To betray, you first have to belong. I never belonged,' he said."

"All this suggest that central to the idea of loyalty is self-identity. Few diplomats go through a career without having grave doubts at different points about the morality or wisdom of the instructions coming from HQ." Yet Crawford notes that only a small number of diplomats resign from instructions coming from HQ. I instantly think of former British diplomat Carne Ross, who resigned during UN negotiations for the Iraq War and has since set up his own organisation Independent Diplomat to help territories and groups become formally recognised as states. 
Crawford goes on to say that - "Different reasons and rationalisations are found for staying loyal even under extreme circumstances (for example when the leadership of the state the diplomat represents is busy brutalising its own people)." To this, Crawford brings up the fate of Danish diplomat Paul Bang-Jensen who took his own life in 1959. Accordingly, "Bang-Jensen refused to hand over to his superiors at the UN a list of names of Hungarians who in strict confidence had testified against communist atrocities in Hungary. Bang-Jensen feared (not without reason) that top UN processes had been infiltrated by communists who wanted to retaliate against the relatives of those who sought to publicise the truth. His unwavering loyalty to honesty rather than the demands of the UN hierarchy cost him his job and led to his tragic end."

The emergence of Bangladesh as an independent state in 1971/72 gives a striking of what happens when one state splits in two. As Bangladesh's struggle to break from Pakistan intensified, Pakistan's diplomat Abul Fateh faced a painful dilemma in deciding whether to stay on as Pakistan's Ambassador to Iraq, or choose an uncertain future with his native land. Fateh decided to join Bangladesh which caused the Pakistani government to furiously denounce his defection. However, in Fateh's decision, he went on to play a distinguished role in establishing Bangladesh's new diplomatic service and represented his country in Paris, London and Algiers. That said, the current Libya case has given rise to a spectacular number of high profile diplomatic changes of side, with one Libyan ambassador after another denouncing support for the opposition forces struggling to bring down the Gaddafi regime. 

Crawford surmised, "...unwelcome problems quickly arise if some diplomats in an embassy switch sides but others don't. Who is running the local Libyan embassy for the purpose of carrying on routine diplomatic business? Who gets invited to which functions? Does a Libyan diplomat who has announced a switch of loyalty still get diplomatic immunity? What about the official embassy care? What if the uprising fails and Gaddafi wins - must we throw these people out of the Libyan embassy? How these questions and many others are answered will depend upon local circumstances and, perhaps, the personalities concerned."

Crawford notes that the worst outcome would be if the violence has no obvious end in sight, which makes us question the outcomes of the Arab Spring. Until now, the Middle East has yet to have its own revelation so there are bound to be political resistance. The Gaddafi elite are clinging on to power despite NATO forces blowing up significant quantities of military equipment. The Libya drama exemplifies the greatest challenge to any diplomat's loyalty to his/her country: what to do if the country slumps into civil war or even disappears altogether?


So, what would you do in such position? What would British diplomats do if Scotland holds a referendum and opts for independence? How do diplomats cope with the instructions of HQ if every nerve in their body rebels against it? Would you rather trust the government you work for, or the family that have always been by your side? It's not an easy question to answer, but it is one that all diplomats must one day be prepared for. 


Full article: http://tinyurl.com/6hs6vjm

Conflict within Conflicts

To celebrate the 10^th anniversary of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom organised a special autumn seminar in 2010 to analyse the objectives and successes of the resolution.

For the first time, a UN resolution provided women worldwide with a legal tool of empowerment which helps to assert their demands against violence and injustice. In a major conference in Beijing 1994, women challenged the realist concept of security by renegotiating gender at the heart of peace and conflict policy-making. UNSCR 1325 puts women squarely in the centre of security issues, promising gender mainstreaming into institutional structures that is otherwise male-dominated, and encouraging governments to be represented by women in key political positions as a means to achieve equality and gender neutrality.

Ten years on, and the progress for gender equality is slow due to a lack of political integrity and resources. At this seminar, Professor Nicola Pratt of Warwick University highlighted how the resolution fails to factor in the gender stereotypes of victims and peace-builders, and does not address imperialist and capitalist ideologies that guarantee national sovereignty. The language fostered in the resolution also does not rightly condemn war, nor does it prosecute gender violence created by armed conflict and military activities. The resolution does not explicitly define the meaning of ‘conflict’, which is probably why countries, such as the United Kingdom has only adapted the resolution to its foreign policy.

When we think of the word ‘conflict’ within an international political context, countries in the Middle East or Central America may pop up in reference to drug cartels, dictator regimes, or internal repression. But when thinking of conflict issues in politically stable countries, I think of youth gangs, gun crimes, racial and sexual discrimination, and political ideology.

For the most part, Britain is a relatively safe country with a democratic and diverse society that adheres to strict national laws. But like many other metropolitan cities, London isn’t without its fair share of trouble. Conflict in the UK exists in the form of forced marriages, rape, domestic violence, living with firearms, gender oppression, and gang violence, all of which are prevalent in British news and policies.

Three years ago, the Metropolitan Police started a massive crackdown against youth gang violence in inner London areas, stating clearly that anyone harbouring weapons like knives or guns would be sent straight to jail. According to Carlene Firmin of Race on the Agenda, applying UNSCR 1325 into these forms of violence creates problems of integration because domestic or gang violence is not formally recognised as a ‘conflict’. Carlene notes that birth and association is a determinant of victimisation for girls and women associated with serious youth violence and criminal gangs across the country and are often made scapegoats in police investigations. For example, when the Metropolitan Police started its anti-weapons campaign, gang girlfriends would be prosecuted for harbouring weapons that were forced onto them in the first place. Race on the Agenda found that girlfriends of gang leaders were subjected to threats, violence and domestic abuse, and were pressured into joining gangs by her partner without any safe exit strategy. If we adapt this scenario into the Democratic Republic of Congo, UNSCR 1325 will instantly apply, but the same cannot be said for the UK despite apparent gender injustice. As a type of conflict, gang violence deals with shifting control and power in relationship in the same way as violence is created in less urban surroundings.

Like many resolutions, UNSCR 1325 is critiqued for speaking for all women and has a ‘one size fits all’ bandage in resolving all types of conflict, ignoring different political systems, culture and economies. When framing UNSCR 1325 into British social conflicts, a high level of disillusionment is apparent in our political system. Young women are invisible when developing, testing and implementing policies and will continue to be excluded if the definition of ‘conflict’ remains as vague and aloof to urban conditions as it is now.

Recommendation: Domestic law should not override international policies but be considered in sync with domestic consultations and policy framework.

Britain's love for arms trade

A country without trade is like a person without friends. Dialogue becomes unnecessary. Communication is non-existent. Amicability ranks second best. With all this, diplomacy has no justification without trade. For Britain, commercial diplomacy has historically provided investment, stability, security and alliances and such a strategy still applies to contemporary diplomatic governance.

Commenting on the February White Paper, British Foreign Secretary William Hague addressed that “business is part of our commitment to inject a new commercialism into the Foreign Office, using our international influence to help British businesses secure new trade opportunities.” To this, he refers to high technology defence exports including the sale of arms, aerospace and security equipment to overseas markets that do not have their own defence industry.

Defence export accounts for about 3% of Britain’s manufacturing exports with a 20% market share in partnership with the US. The arms trade has an annual sale of above £17billion with the biggest customers placing orders worth £13bn. Although these figures are not as big as it was during the Cold War, Britain is seeking to become more competitive by broadening out its capacity to selling defence and security equipment to countries that clearly violate human rights policies.

Under the Coalition Programme, the UK Trade and Investment Defence and Security Organisation (UK TIDSO) reasserts that the government will only permit responsible defence exports that are used for “legitimate purposes, not internal repression”. This policy is based on the EU Common Position on Arms Export adopted in June 1998, which states that export licenses will be refused if there is a risk that defence equipment will be used:

-        -   for aggression and internal repression

-        -  to provoke or prolong an armed conflict

-        -  to assert territorial claim which may lead to war

Unfortunately, there is growing evidence that Britain has and continues to misjudge the risks appropriated to selling arms to allies and partners who break the promise to uphold their end of the bargain. Since the 80s, the UK has dealt extensively with Saudi Arabia totalling £1.7bn with the Al-Yamamah contract considered to be the largest deal made. According to the Financial Times, British export licenses since 2009 have covered submachine guns and tear gas in Bahrain, military components for helicopters in Algeria, hand grenades to Jordan, and machine guns to Egypt. Reports have also uncovered evidence that British defence contractors BAE Systems have sold shotguns to Morocco, tear gas and hand grenades to Saudi Arabia, night vision goggles and body armour to Yemen, and small arms ammunition to Syria.

The UK purposefully attempts to plug the gap in domestic sales in the Middle East as UK TIDSO regards oil-rich states of Algeria and Libya as their priority markets in the region. The agreement to supply Hawk, Tornado and other aircraft and support systems was the UK’s biggest ever export agreements, so the market gap is clearly evident. However, these Middle Eastern countries only elaborate the level of hypocrisy exercised by the government because such licences breach policies to the protection of civilians against internal threats. Official reports show that the British government approved £6.1million in arms export to Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. Yet, we have seen Gaddafi declare war on his own people, using weapons supplied by Britain against civilians and journalists. The UK was surprised that a former ally had broken the lease of their contract but has argued that there was no evidence that British tear gas was used against peaceful demonstrators. To make matters worse, Prime Minister David Cameron was forced to explain why he and his delegation were seen promoting the sale of arms to post-Mubarak Egypt instead of endorsing democracy.

In line with the EU Common Position on Arms Export, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) revoked more than 50 arms licenses from Bahrain and Libya since the uprising as a means to protect civilians from aggression and war. However is it not too late to revoke licenses when uprisings and aggression has already begun? Apparently not, because during Tony Blair’s tenure, the government approved military licenses to human rights violators including Sri Lanka, Algeria, Zimbabwe, and Columbia which only exposed the hypocrisy to Robin Cook’s ‘ethical foreign policy’ strategy. In the Human Rights and Democracy Report published in March 2011, the FCO recorded 26 countries with serious human rights concerns including the ones stated above. So why does the government not learn from its mistakes?

As set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review, the government will promote defence and security exports for ‘good’ commercial reasons which help to build the capacity of British partners and allies, potentially reduce their own acquisition costs and gain comparative advantage in key technologies, skills and know-how. Business seems to take the lead over the moral high ground particularly when considering its national interest and objective. 
According to a government dossier, the UK security export is calculated at £1.5 billion with the value of defence contracts to be £7.2 billion. This makes UK TIDSO one of the leading defence and security industries having licenses with over 96 overseas markets, which helps to secure 300,000 jobs for British people. This means 1.2 million people rely on the arms trade to make a living. 

In his interview with Total Politics, William Hague noted how important it is for Britain to retain a global presence, by using diplomatic networks to support UK business. He said that, “…the expansion of world trade, including our trade with growing economies, is one of our most fundamentally important national objectives… Good trading links and expanding economic links can often go along human rights and rule of law [which is why] …the commercial emphasis that we place in our foreign policy… is fundamentally important”.

In short, defence and security trade is important in connecting Britain to markets in key regions and will continue to be an investment to Britain’s trading infrastructure. Hague says: “You have to have a good legal reason to stop people exporting things…we can’t, just on a whim, say that there’s a whole list of things that we’re not exporting [just because] we don’t like the look of you. We have among the toughest criteria in the world for exports under successive governments”.

The government believe that its trading policy and restrictions are rigorous and fair as it complies with international commitments, but even government ministers have ordered a review into the issuing of arms export licenses. There is no doubt that the government needs to set out how it intends to reconcile potential conflict of interest between promoting arms export and upholding human rights but tighter regulations are required to minimise risk and errors of judgment. Trade is at the heart of diplomatic missions, but the danger of trading defence and security equipment is not knowing who you can trust.