http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trO1RY3KC44
Goin' back down to Okinawa
Sorry, baby, but I can't take you
You better stay at home in California
There's nothing over there that you can do
Goin' back down to Okinawa
Ain't gonna do me like you've done before
They treat me like a king down in Okinawa
And I may never come back no more
It's just an island floating in the sun
Everybody is having so much fun
Pretty mamas laying in the sand
Sure to know how to treat your man
Okinawian baby, won't you come by me ?
Sun going down in the China Sea
Making love on the beach all night
Okinawa moon is shining so bright
Folks in Okinawa sure have fun
They get together when the working day is done
Drinking cheap wine. and making romance
While some old man's doing the Okina dance
Back in the days of World War II
Fought against the Japanese like me and you
Everybody's worried âbout World War III
Okinawa's just the place where I'm gonna be
Going back to Okinawa
Sorry, but I can't take you
Never coming back no more, baby
Ry Cooder, Going Back to Okinawa [ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/r/ry_cooder/going_back_to_okinawa.html ]
In 1995 Joseph Nye produced a strategic document for the East-Asia Pacific region for President Clinton. This proposed a halt to former President G.H.Bush's measured troop reductions and whacked up the troop numbers to 100,000 ( similar to Cold War numbers) in Japan and South Korea with those countries expected to contribute from their own forces. This was to enable, in Nye's words, a place at the Asian table and 'to protect our interests'. Okinawa was one of these places where troop numbers would be sustained at high levels (at between 30,000 to 50,000). The Governor of Okinawa, Ota Masahide, rightly took exception to this arrogant assumption of ownership as if it was a US fiefdom. The residents of Okinawa having been humiliated in 1952 when mainland Japan offered the island as a base in return for its sovereignty had hoped for a withdrawal of troop numbers. Months later protests reached fever pitch with the news of US military personnel inflicting a vicious sexual assault on a pre-teen girl. In 1996 Clinton agreed to move the marines out of Futenma whilst the construction of another base was completed. However, the mainland Japanese authorities offered the US a harbour port with a coral reef of sensitive environmental importance. To the US the coral was a nuisance and they had tried to blow it up previously. Money not defence became the driving force. It is ironic that Japan's first instinct after reconstruction was to make sure that economics replaced an absent military strength and that this would in turn help in terms of leveraging a better position and more equal status with the US. (G.Austin & S.Harris,2001) Community leaders decried the Japanese and US willingness to act as if it were Okinawa's drug dealer. 'It is as if the Japanese government has made Okinawa a drug addict, and the US government takes full advantage of the addiction, in order to maintain its military presence'. (Miyazato Seigen) The proposed development was estimated to cost $16 billion and it has been keenly contested at every stage by the Okinawans. In 2008 Nye returned to the fray in style by saying that any changes to his proposals would be seen as that scarily worn-out old chestnut (my words); 'anti-american'.
In Japan the ruling Democratic Party which had won in 2009 caved in and morphed into a pale copy of the previous Liberal Democrat government effectively pledging blind allegiance to Washington. Obama was happy to give Prime Minister Kan a photo shoot at the Toronto G20 and so was Kan. The outcome has the warming effect of giving the US hawks Japans highly effective 240,000 forces under its broad wings. The new Henoko base is thus a trivial arrangement in comparison but not to Okinawans. In early 2010 90,000 islanders protested demanding the closure of Futenma and the halting of work on the proposed base at Futenma. In one poll 84% opposed the new base.
Japan is effectively a client state of the US; 'One that enjoys the formal trappings of a Westphalian sovereignty and independence, and is therefore neither a colony nor a puppet state.' (McCormack)Japan has ended up paying the US for the privelige of letting them occupy Okinawa and dominating the Meiji era elite who have ruled Japan. Somehow because of their submissiveness to the US the Japanese have signed up to the G.W.Bush's globally created 'war on terror' even though Islam is and never has been a threat to Japan. Meanwhile Japan has no independent foreign policy of its own and the protests in Henoko continue.
Meanwhile, China having got used to 6 decades of neighbourly stability, have started to be concerned with the US presence in Japan. Senior Chinese leaders have often voiced their opposition to the idea of foreign military occupation such as in Okinawa. The US-Japan alliance effectively dictates how China and Japan see each other in military terms. Japan in turn has not been afraid to stand up to China and has often voiced its concerns over China's 'missile diplomacy' with Taiwan and its objections to China's nuclear testing. (G. Austin & S.Harris, 2001)
In conclusion it is evident that there is a total absence of public diplomacy or soft power initiatives alongside Nye's diktats and very little noticeable cultural diplomatic effort to win the Okinawans over. One wonders what exactly Joseph Nye would call his strategic aims in academic terms but they are in fact unmistakeably Neo-Con Imperialist in my view. 'Over exposure with regard to the internal affairs of another country.... is liable to produce an unintended public diplomacy consequence which can be corrosive to the legitimacy of the actors.'
(http://www.blogger.com/postedit.gblogID=3691872501256573949&postID=1339426805892855573)
This quote referred in its original form to the relationship between Pakistan and the US and it should act as pre-cautionary principle. The situation in Okinawa discredits both actors; Japan and the US .
'The successful diplomat is part analyst, part advocate, part policy-maker and part communications strategist.' http://www.blogger.com/postedit.gblogID=3691872501256573949&postID=1339426805892855573
The 'successful diplomat' across the region covered by Nye's strategic document will struggle to persuade even in 'soft' terms that there is anything in it of comfort to a Ryukyuan fisherman whose village, harbour and local atoll is about to be bombed and filled in with concrete in the interests of US hegemony in the Far East. In this respect 90,000 protesting Okinawans could make life very hard for the US on the beach when the moon shines bright. Never mind World War Three!
It would also help if the Japanese government reviewed its policy of following the US on the 'war on terror' which serves no purpose for Japan in the short term but could do real damage to it in the long term in Islamic countries where their public and cultural diplomacy has up until now been valued or been seen as neutral. 'The ecology of public diplomacy can be characterised as a series of contests of competitive credibility, as Joseph Nye put it, where success is measured by ‘whose story wins’.' (1)Or alternatively, and in simple layman terms, whose strategic document is pro-American enough to win.
Gavan McCormack 'Obama v Okinawa' New Left Review Issue 64 July/Aug 2010
G. Austin & S. Harris, (2001) Japan and Greater China, C. Hurst & Co, London
Open University:
(1)http://www.blogger.com/postedit.gblogID=3691872501256573949&postID=1339426805892855573
Sunday 12 June 2011
Diplomacy & Pre-texts to War
Lord Palmerston was not a popular Foreign Secretary with the establishment. Though he was very popular with rest of the country and had lofty ideas of how England should 'with the strong arm of England' defend its citizenry 'against injustice and wrong'. He meant a certain kind of citizen or subject. Queen Victoria was not keen on his style of public diplomacy at all. He was often doing things without telling Her Majesty. He ignored her wishes, and other ministers, and gave her lectures about his grand liberal causes. At one point he got involved with the case of a well-to-do moneylender by the name of David 'Don' Pacifico, a Gibraltarian Jewish gentleman who had his house burnt down by an allegedly anti-moneylender/anti-semitic mob in Athens in 1847. Greece has had problems with moneylenders and external interference ever since.
His ensuing claim for compensation was somewhat exaggerated and the Greek government refused to pay him a farthing. The Foreign Secretary took up the case of the wealthy money-lender as a loyal subject of a Crown colony. He initiated four days of parliamentary time to discuss the situation. Palmerston delivered a famous five-hour speech in which he sought to vindicate not only his claims on the Greek government for Don Pacifico, but his entire administration of foreign affairs.
Palmerston won the vote but was later censured in the House of Lords. As Foreign Secretary, without consulting the Queen, he deployed the navy to seize Greek boats and blockaded the main port of Athens at Piraeus to force payment from the government. In so doing he upset the French who had brokered a diplomatic deal to settle the matter and the Russians who were co-guarantors of the newly independent Greek state. At one point during the crisis the French ambassador left London in disgust.
The blockade lasted two months and severely damaged the reputation of puppet King Otto of Greece. It also deeply annoyed and embarrassed Queen Victoria and the Prime Minister of the day Lord John Russell. Eighteen months after this debacle Palmerston is given his marching orders and is sacked from office after starting another of his public diplomatic efforts in supporting Louis Napoleon's coup in France without the full approval of his Prime Minister and his Queen. He was sacked for "violations of prudence and decorum".
Palmerston was the quintessential gunboat diplomatist. He had also made the Chinese sign the Treaty of Nanking after defeating them in the First Opium War of 1842. This treaty opened up 5 Chinese ports to the ubiquitous 'free trade' system of the time. Opium was the highest valued commodity of its day in the 19th century and the Chinese were forced to buy it in exchange for Chinese silk and tea for the UK market. In 1856 Chinese officials boarded a British colonial registered boat called the Arrow suspected of acts of piracy. It was this pre-text that gave Palmerston the casus belli for another war for his own brand of free trade. This sparked off another round of sabre rattling and gunboat diplomacy by Palmerston and the start of the Second Opium War which was no more than a ruse to impose further trade agreements with the Chinese. The Chinese soon realised that the Arrow incident had provided the international pre-text to imposing Imperialist solutions without reference to justice or honour. (1) The Chinese have not forgotten to teach each generation afterwards about these humiliations inflicted on them by Western Imperialists forces and powers.
Palmerston represented a gradual change of diplomatic style which can be seen developing. He is the 'Old Public Diplomacy' morphing into the 'New'. The reaction against Palmerston's high handed approach lead to more consultation between the Crown, ministers and the Foreign Office during Queen Victoria's reign. However it can be seen that the emerging Imperialist Americans adopted a similar tenuous 'pre-text' strategy most famously in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 in which a series of incidents at sea allowed President Lyndon Johnson to start a the land invasion of Vietnam. Johnson then escalated the war without Congresses approval which damaged his legacy. Just as the WMD intelligence dossier proved to be the flimsy pre-text, once again, for the G.W. Bush US government and the Tony Blair administrations invasion of Iraq. Wars are still being fought on flimsy 'pre-texts'.
Don Pacifico: The Acceptable Face of Gunboat Diplomacy by Derek Taylor
Chronicle of Britain and Ireland (1992) JL Publishing/Random Century
PM Blair and Pres. Bush "apologise"
Inside Iraq Al Jazeera 7th June 2010
http://youtu.be/B0Zg-OwnvWA
The First Lady and Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School
Michelle Obama, the current First Lady, has now established herself as the champion of a North London School. Her first singular journey as First Lady was when she visited the school in 2009. The connection is a positive one in a number of different ways and illustrates a fine example of Cultural Diplomacy in action and one hopes that reciprocal arrangements will be fostered. It is a shame the Prime Ministers wife does not seem to be present which is a shame. I suppose she was planning to do other things. The sight of both First Ladies being involved with a school or twin school arrangement as an example of fostering ties and links would be one that No 10 should think about. But I would hesitate to let the Foreign and Commonwealth Office know about it. .
I wanted also to look at the significance of choosing a school named after a remarkable early feminist and pioneer in the medical proffession- Elizabeth Garrett Anderson herself. She was a gifted physician and an early Victorian feminist who became the first female member of the British Medical Association. The BMA then saw fit to make sure she was the only female member for 19 years ( from 1873-1892) by closing the doors of opportunity to woman physicians after letting Anderson join. So this all ready shows that the school stands for opportunity for women who study, women involved with science and with a background message of social mobility in a new era. Added to this is an international and transatlantic dimension which has broad appeal.
Oxford University recently got into some controversy with the current Prime Minister about social mobility at the university and equality of opportunity. In cold statistical terms some colleges have not selected many young black men and women at their colleges and this is true of most of the universities in the elite Russell group of universities.
In fact London Metropolitan may be 119th, in the league table of universities, on some issues but it is the top university on black and ethnic representation and opportunity in the country and a pillar of social mobility. May it remain so.
References:
Michelle Obama, First Lady, at Oxford University:
http://youtu.be/VQDjYyKGRNU (49 minutes)
Report on Public & Cultural Diplomacy: Wilton House July 2010 Conference Report
- 'Wilton Park is an executive agency of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is academically independent.' (wikipedia entry)
- This report was published before the wikileaks episodes and just after the Coalition government was formed and before the 'Arab Spring'. There is much emphasis in this report on UK's ability to handle web 2.0 platforms and this runs through the document. It is concerned with person-to-person relations when governments try to reach out in gestures of good will. How do audiences 'consume and interpret key government messages'? Like the French with a gallic shrug of the shoulders perhaps. There is inherent in this the idea that the 'new media' has to settle down. The forces of conservatism wants the new kids on the block to stop causing such a ruckus in the 'hood all ready. There is a great deal of emphasis on strategic approaches and yet later the document suggests no one really knows what works. To be fair the document is a distillation of a high level discussion on diplomacy. The trouble is that they did not involve people with 'ideas' or 'imagination' to get them, the diplomats, to relax and take a chill pill. There is an emphasis on the need for a more 'regional diplomacy' but no reference to more regional democracy and no English parliament or English FCO. Recently the visit of Russell Crowe to the arts department of Durham University seemed to show the possibilities. (Footnote) (However things do not always go according to plan with Russell Crowe, who is not one of Australias designated citizen diplomats) The common thread is that the FCO needs to be 'creative' and use some 'imagination'. Aaah errm let's get some British artists and designers in! Some web designers maybe. Connect the message and connect the dots too. The report lists the achievements and challenges of the FCO's digital campaign.
- Climate Change Summit
- G20 meeting in London 2009
- Some challenging Middle East initiatives which will take longer to come to fruition
- A less than successful campaign in Africa.
The role of the military is discussed. There is an awareness that NATO will have a bigger role. But we know what that role is and once again the objectives are rather fuzzy around the edges. 'Soft power and the military' seems a tautology but this is the future we are told. Applying Nye's definition would seem to me to be too accepting of an ideology. Here it is 'image and message' that are the key. If Abu Graib type events and civilian deaths can be avoided then all the better for the 'image and the message'. Later in the report it refers to a 'slow cooking approach' to 'enhancing soft power.' Does NATO own art galleries? I do not think so.
Much of the report can be summed up as 'know your enemy' or 'keep him close' which is ancient advice from Sun Tzu. PD must assess threats from those who are 'marginalised states of mind'. The report refers to Al Qaeda as 1% organisation and 99% brand with the promise of being a world player on the world stage (and 72 virgins in the next world).
There are new security threats in the world from a variety of sources. It is important to realise that sometimes military messages just do not work. The report talks of 'embedding big user friendly local ideas and values'. This being an idea borrowed from the effects of embedding journalists with the army which is a propaganda exercise which always compromises journalists integrity. Propaganda magic tricks, sleights of hand, and Orwellian double think are evident at times in this report.
The deployment of long term branding is a strategic lesson that government PD have not refined and adopted to its advantage. However I would say that some brands should not tire their audience for example Coke and Pepsi do not need to advertise any more, they are world brands. Though the report does widen its acceptance of inviting those with commercial insights into the arena such as Vince Cable who used to work for Shell.
PD needs to correct the distortions of perception and open the doors to perception. Governments have intractable cross border problems beyond simple self interests that only cooperation can solve e.g.;
- Climate change
- Weapons proliferation
- International terrorism
The report looks at the power of social networks in the developing PD initiatives. Many are still not convinced but diplomats need to approach social networks with 'cordial honest(y) and professional(ism)'. But many are clueless as to how something like facebook can 'be factored into strategic decisions'. Of course much has changed since July 2010 since the report was released. There are also cultural differences to be respected within social networks. It is as anarchic as international law and yet as we know now it is thisd narrow view which is so intractable. How do you reconcile PD's apparent conservatism and reticence and the inherent nature of social networks which are not elite centred but social and democratic? It is a horned dilemma. The report recognises the problems of this resistance to change. International and US bloggers regularly use the BBC as a source. The BBC is seen as 'authoritative and trustworthy'.
At this point I found something to debate within the report. It states that forum rules attached to the media are rules set by the community and this is a blind perception. It is not the case. (If I disagree strongly with a given Daily Mail article the adjudicator at the Daily Mail will use his/her editorial power. Debate ends up being restricted. You cannot diss the brand sometimes!)
'The power of partnerships' is a useful conference phrase to bandy about at a conference. It is a bland expression. One sensible prediction which shows some prescience is that 'connectivity will lead to authoritarian regimes changing because they still have to engage'. This applies to the recent Jasmine Revolution /Arab Spring with some exceptions.
On th subject of sport and PD the report has a few things to say. China has slowly been working at changing perceptions through sport. (China won 51 Gold medals in 2008.) The Chinese managed to 'promote global cooperation and peaceful co-existence'. The FCO is seeking to replicate this success in ways that are distinctive. London Mayor Boris Johnson's waving of the British flag at Beijing is an abiding image of the closing of Beijing 2008 and an effective message (Unless you believe that flag waving 'patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel'). It is an 'opportunity to enhance the UK's reputation'. A number of associative factors are helping to promote the UK on the lead up to 2012, perhaps the report has these events in mind. The associative reflex reaction can really help PD.
- The Queen's state visit to Ireland
- President Obama's visit to the UK
- The Queen's Golden Jubilee in 2012
- The wedding of Prince William and Katherine Middleton
- Terrorism
- Climate Change
- Global Economic recovery
My conclusion would be to say that PD is trying to work out what works but just cannot put its finger on what actually works. Diplomats might want to use facebook but the FCO would rather they did not.
Polylateralism: the new music of diplomacy
Polylateralism is central to any understanding of contemporary or New Diplomacy. This is the relationship between the state and other entities. The importance of transnational organisations in the mix of modern state affairs is increasingly important. Geoffrey Wiseman mentions that the United States has, on the face of it, differing diplomatic accentuations in Los Angeles, New York and Washington DC which is due to emphasis and centres of power. New York is host to the UN and other institutions so is polylateralist, Washington DC is bilateralist by nature because many embassies are bilateral and exhibit an older diplomatic raison d'etre. Los Angeles is modern and scattered and has strong links to big transnationals so is polylateralist. However one cannot make this an easy case for explanation because as it happens the World Bank and the IMF are in Washington and a plethora of institutes, think tanks and lobbysists. On closer examination though bilateralism dominates Washington they are all examples of complex polylateral networks. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the gradual emergence of developing states as regional powers the idea of polylateralism has taken root.
Four models have grwon out of these trends:
1)Non state actors: NGO's
2)Deregulation across borders
3)Ethnic and religious tensions have emerged within states as forms of conflict
4)Information based and technological advances have accelerated
(Wiseman)
These developments have shunted bilateral and multilateral methods into the background. The lines of demarcation have become blurred as the state sovereignty has become diffuse. This posits the idea that we are now in a Post-Westphalian world of governance because of the influence of trans-national actors.
This has given rise to a multitude of new diplomatic labels and has seen like modern music a fracturing of genres of diplomacy:
1. “triangular diplomacy” (statestate,
state-firm, firm-firm relations);
2.“multilayered diplomacy” (involving
noncentral governments);
3. “second track diplomacy” (methods of diplomacy
outside the formal governmental system, often initiated by nongovernmental
actors and involving diplomats in their personal capacity);
4.“multitrack diplomacy” (an extension of the second-track concept, which
includes a wide range of societal groups engaged in peacemaking activities);
5.“niche diplomacy” (the ability of small and middle powers to provide
initiative and leadership in specific international areas);
6.“preventive diplomacy” (action designed to prevent existing disputes from escalating
into military conflicts);
7.“virtual diplomacy” (a process of direct global
and transnational communication and bargaining between non-state
groups and individuals made possible by new technologies, such as the
Internet).1.
To further stretch the music metaphor further it was appropriate that a baby boomer American president William Jefferson Clinton, who could play the saxaphone, emerged just after the Cold War ended and just as these changes were taking place to take advantage of the winds of change. Bill Clinton was also forced to change direction in his first term of office which kept him sailing into a second term. A polylateral President emerged into the polylateral age.
So where now will these powerful winds of change take diplomacy now.
International Affairs, vol. 68, no. 1Localizing Foreign Policy: Non-Central Governments and “Polylateralism” and New Modes of Global Dialogue 53
, 3rd.ed., West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1996; Andrew F. CooperNiche Diplomacy, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997; Michael S. Lund, Preventing, Washington, DC: United StatesPreventive Diplomacy Stopping Wars, New York: Basic Books, 1996; John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, The, Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1996. The US Institute of Peace convened a conferenceHoover Digest Selections, no. 1 (1998),(
final_chap43.qxd 18/05/2004 6:44 PM Page 53
Multilayered Diplomacy
, London: Macmillan, 1993; Louise Diamond and John McDonald, Multitrack Diplomacy
(ed.),
Violent Conflicts: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy
Institute of Peace Press, 1996; Kevin M. Cahill (ed.),
Before They Start
Advent of Netwar
on “virtual diplomacy” in Washington DC in April 1997. The keynote speeches are
available on the Institute’s web site, www.usip.org. For a sceptical view of the impact of the
internet, see George P. Shultz, ‘Diplomacy, Wired’,
adapted from Shultz’s keynote speech delivered at the USIP conference., 3rd.ed., West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1996; Andrew F. CooperNiche Diplomacy, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997; Michael S. Lund, Preventing, Washington, DC: United StatesPreventive Diplomacy Stopping Wars, New York: Basic Books, 1996; John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, The, Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1996. The US Institute of Peace convened a conferenceHoover Digest Selections, no. 1 (1998),(
Wiseman
1. Susan Strange, ‘States, firms and diplomacy,’
(January 1992); Brian Hocking,
Soft Power Public Diplomacy: Joseph Nye and why China gets it but the Neo-Cons don't
'Rumsfeld said, “I just don’t understand what it (Soft Power) means.” And my reaction to that is, it’s part of the problem.' Joseph Nye
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/joseph_nye_on_global_power_shifts.html
In this talk given by Joseph Nye he weaves his arguments in favour of the deployment of more effective 'Soft Power' into the fabric of current global shifts. In particular the predictions surrounding the rise to power of China. He points out that the predictions are inherently linear when in fact it is oversimplistic to look at economic indicators and say 'China will overtake the US in economic terms' by a certain date. These trends have to be attended to by politicians and diplomats in their 'Smart Power' assessments of current and future outcomes. 'Smart Power' is a development of 'soft power'. It is said that when 'Donald Rumsfeld first heard the phrase ('Soft Power') he didn't know what it meant' (Joel Whitney 2008). Furthermore China need not be the threat to world stability that she is sometimes portrayed in recent times. The key to how she is seen lies in cooperation and discussion around the table at the higher levels. This must also be coupled with the understanding that China's gain need not mean our loss. The 'zero sum game' obsession that some people like to vocalise internationally is becoming less applicable- I think this would be disputed between those with weight on the international stage. So Nye is saying to use part of the oft quoted Ethelbert Talbot saying; “The important thing... is not so much winning as taking part.” Nye states that recent discussions about the waning of US power are part of a periodic and ongoing discussion which has recurred with some regularity since 1958. He refers to the 'privatisation of war' almost casually as if this is a neo-liberal trend we will have to accept almost without question which I find contentious.
"We rarely speak of the soft power of attraction, of persuasion. Soft power is an analytical term, not a rallying cry, and perhaps that is why it has taken hold in academic and business discussions, and in other parts of the world like Europe, China, and India, but not in the American political debate." (How soft is smart, Joel Whitney interviews Joseph Nye, October 2008)In this way Nye points to 'Soft Power' being a tool or instrument of Public Diplomacy. The minimal use of coercion with 'carrots' and 'sticks' and the hidden powers of persuasion and attraction with the occasional political 'nudge' thrown in. The last is my addition to the lexicographical pantheon. (The current UK government are convinced that we can be behaviourally 'nudged' into doing the states bidding at home and abroad.) Nye is also stating in benign patrician tones that this has been the way forward for the US role in international affairs since the dark napalmed mornings of Vietnam and so far when Presidents have been aware of the term it has served the US better. Obama's soft power weapon from the outset was his ability to restore America's image internationally. However his success abroad in 'soft power' terms has been perceived by some at home in the US as a weakness by the gung-ho 'hard power' Neo-Con enthusiasts.
"It struck me that there was something intangible—ideas, values—and it struck me that humans are moved by ideas and values, and it may not be tangible or hard, but it’s still a form of power, and that led me to the idea of soft power." (Nye to Whitney, 2008)
'Britain's greatest gift to the world' faces budget cuts.
This is a blog on the current Con-LibDem Coalition's governments approach and attitude to the BBC World Service whose budget was cut by 16% whilst the 'Foreign Affairs' (the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) budget was reduced by 24% and which is from the policy/guiding principles agreement reached days after the Coalition was formed. (The Guardian, Comprehensive Spending Review, 21/10/10)
It should also be mentioned that the soft power influence of the BBC World Service was harmed by change made to their funding. The BBC will have to fund the world service themselves not the FCO. This will lead to a diminishing of service and influence. A thousand jobs are expected to go at the BBC after cuts to the World Service and BBC Online. Five language services will go; Albanian, Macedonian, Portuguese for Africa and Serbian, and cuts to the Carribbean service. The BBC World Service will be lose 16% of their budget over the next 4 years. It is estimated that 30 million listeners will lose their coverage out of a world wide audience estimated at 180 million listeners world wide. (p.14,The Guardian, 26/01/2011)
"It is an unwise move at a time when Britain's influence in the world is waning as new actors -China, India, Brazil- emerge" said Daya Thussu, professor of international communication at the University of Westminster, to the Independent newspaper (p16, The Independent, 27/01/2011). It is hoped however that online services will prove to be more cost effective and contact will still be possible.
It seems ridiculous to ignore the fact that not everyone in the world has ready access to the internet. A great many people all over the world have pocket radios tuned into the BBC World Service which is a British quality marked brand with influence and an impressive record of diversity in action. While Aung San Suu Kiyu was under house arrest she listened to the BBC World Service to keep herself informed. Kofi Annan described the World Service as 'Britain's greatest gift to the world'.
I spoke to a former diplomat to the Lebanon from 1957-1961, Christoper Everett, who was surprised at the cut to the service and was concerned at the impact of the cuts. ' The BBC should have been allowed to seperate the World Service from the budget arrangements. There is a very good argument for the World Service being treated as seperate and distinctive with an identity all of it's own'.
My own belief in the efficacy of a certain old fashioned but effective use of British soft power has taken a blow. In a world in need of the softer elements of subtlety in diplomacy it seems to me to be a poor decision and ridiculous that a current Tory Foreign Secretary could not see the worthiness of maintaining and developing the World Service. The Coalition will regret this decision.
(15. FOREIGN AFFAIRS
The Government believes that Britain must always be an active member of the global community, promoting our national interests while standing up for the values of freedom, fairness and responsibility. This means working as a constructive member of the United Nations, NATO and other multilateral organisations including the Commonwealth; working to promote stability and security; and pushing for reform of global institutions to ensure that they reflect the modern world.
• We will take forward our shared resolve to safeguard the UK’s national security and support our Armed Forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
• We will push for peace in the Middle East, with a secure and universally recognised Israel living alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state.
• We will work to establish a new ‘special relationship’ with India and seek closer engagement with China, while standing firm on human rights in all our bilateral relationships.
• We will maintain a strong, close and frank relationship with the United States.
• We want to strengthen the Commonwealth as a focus for promoting democratic values and development.
• We will work to promote stability in the Western Balkans.
• We will support concerted international efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
• We support reform of the UN Security Council, including permanent seats for Japan, India, Germany, Brazil and African representation.
• We will work to intensify our cultural, educational, commercial and diplomatic links with many nations beyond Europe and North America to strengthen the UK’s relations with the fastest-growing areas of the world economy.
• We will never condone the use of torture. )
I will explore this further.
Non-Engagement in Diplomacy: The Magnificent Seven Outsiders
What do these countries, or former countries, have in common?
- USSR
- China
- Vietnam
- Libya
- Cuba
- North Korea
- Iran
They have all been excluded from diplomacy with the US at various times. They form an exclusive and notable group of exclusion. The distrust went back to Jefferson. In the early days the Americans just did not trust diplomacy. But this proved to be a detrimental distrust. In fact they did not send diplomats abroad until the 1890’s[1]. In the 20th Century this was made remarkable by the US Senate’s refusal to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. America’s ‘ability to moralize has been a liability at times in diplomacy. This has been a liability which it has used to its own advantage. It has also been shown to have an unwillingness in recent times to abide by international law.[2] Thus showing that the US wants the world in its own image. Imagine a world without diplomacy and international law? It is not an easy thing to do but we would have to go back many thousands of years to find it.
So let us look at the seven states that the US did not want to recognize in diplomatic ways.
- USSR
After the revolution the US would not recognise the regime. They opened an embassy in Moscow 1933
- China
Non-recognition became a weapon to isolate enemies and diminish their prestige. Nixon visited Beijing in 1972. Normalization started a with Carter in 1979. The Chinese economy has grown rapidly from this point.
- Vietnam
As it was communist the US would not have any diplomatic relations with them. Carter started normalization and then Clinton completed with the lifting of trade embargoes.
- Libya
In US eyes Libya was an adversarial state that would not agree to US conditions. Restoration of diplomatic ties started in 2008 after deals were struck over the Lockerbie Bombing..
- Cuba
Ties were broken off in 1961 this lead to an absence of diplomatic contact until 1977 when President Carter made diplomatic arrangements via the Swiss Embassy in Cuba and in Washington. Cuba is the only state that is subject to the 1917 US trading with the Enemy Act.
- North Korea
The US has never had normal relations with North Korea in diplomatic terms and never signed the ceasefire so is still technically at war. Madeleine Albright visited Pyongyang in 1994. George W. Bush refused any contact preferring to refer to them as part of the ‘Axis of Evil’.
- Iran
Problems between Iran and the US started in 1979 with the Islamic Revolution and the US diplomatic hostages who were held for 444 days. Iran also became a part of George .W.Bush’s ‘Axis of evil’. In 2006 there seemed to be a diplomatic shift by the US. Negotiations were mooted. The nuclear ambitions of Iran and there geopolitical role have caused real policy problems for the US and Europe.
These examples illustrate that the US should engage not seperate or isolate. To reap benefits they need to engage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)