Andy Pryce

London's diversity and public diplomacy

I am visiting London this week for some developmental training. I have attended both the Foreign Office's Deputy Heads of Mission course, ran by Ashridge, and the Crisis Leadership Course ran by our impressive consular crisis team. Any readers interested in a career in the Foreign Office should know that we run a first class set of developmental programmes and courses.

London's cosmopolitan nature is striking whenever I return. Only New York comes close to London in its claim to be the world's city. A 2006 survey found that 18% of Londoners use a language other than English in their home. This suggests to me that many Londoners maintain close ties to their home countries. As a public diplomacy practitioner, I wonder if this represents a communication opportunity. Are the ties that Londoners, or New Yorkers for that matter, have with other countries the type that allow influence at home? I understand that the Smith-Mundt Act prevents the US from undertaking this type of activity at domestically. But do readers see a benefit in engaging local communities with close ties to other countries?

By the way, I would not agree with the definition of public diplomacy given in the Wikipedia entry on Smith-Mundt.

Posted at 10:28 27 October 2008 by Andy Pryce  |  Comments[1]

The Listening Project

The Listening Project is a documentary film that examines what a range of people around the world think of America.

I suspect a similar project on the UK would produce a range of results (I am tempted to conduct one around DC some time soon). The question for diplomats like myself is whether a mixed opinion of my country amongst the public at large overseas makes it more difficult to project soft power. It is tempting to say yes, of course. But the public at large in a number of countries are either disassociated or not interested in all but the most crucial foreign policy decisions. Simon Anholt gave his thoughts in the Foreign Office's recent publication on public diplomacy.

Posted at 09:58 21 October 2008 by Andy Pryce  |  Comments[5]

The importance of being credible

A recent FCO publication on public diplomacy included a chapter by USC professor Nick Cull. The chapter suggested seven lessons for public diplomacy practitioners:

1. Public diplomacy begins with listening.

2. Public diplomacy must be connected to policy.

3. Public diplomacy is not a performance for domestic consumption.

4. Effective public diplomacy requires credibility, but that has implications for the bureaucratic structure around the activity.

5. Sometimes the most credible voice in public diplomacy is not one's own.

6. Public diplomacy is not always 'about you'.

7. Public diplomacy is everyone's business.

I see these lessons as sound and sensible. Behaving this way could help us develop better influencing programmes around the world. I would be interested in the thoughts of my readers.

I wonder what the Russians think of Cull's advice. Did anyone notice their recent supplement in The Washington Post? The Weekly Standard Blog covered it. 

Posted at 13:35 24 September 2008 by Andy Pryce  |  Comments[0]