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.

Some clear evidence is needed of the impact of PD during the economic downturn. As we know now the Coalition has decided the BBC should take responsibility for the World Service which was a partially economic decision. The Conservatives were always upset that the World Service would not do what the FCO wanted it to do. The report shows that the government have not yet decided what role the general public should have, just so long as the policy ideas come from those who have the paid jobs and the job specs designed to do just that. The report rejects the simplistic ideas of working on Brand UK. Moving away from Cool Britannia. After all New Labour has gone and the new bosses have their shiny new brooms to use. 'Ingenuity' is also key which Carne Ross would agree with. The report is missing the idea that PD in the UK needs a qualitative kite mark and a range of experts from a range of fields.

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.;

1. Climate change
2. Weapons proliferation
3. International terrorism

Religion can help PD and should not be dismissed by secular society. Governments are sometimes in need of 'suitable moral agents'. For example in failed states the faith community can prove to be an invaluable power to work with.

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

However the slogan for the Olympics; 'We're all in this together' whilst it works for the games is being over used and propagandised by PM Cameron in his austerity drives. It can be true for sport but not necessarily in society at large. I do not believe that it applies to the ruling elites who develop neo-liberal policy on the international stage on certain key issues;

1. Terrorism
2. Climate Change
3. Global Economic recovery

It would be more accurate to say that we are all being manipulated together and our right to protest against it is being curtailed. 'Collaboration between global actors such as governments and corporations are essential in the implementation of effective PD campaigns' the report concludes.  In this way the British government will work no doubt, and has worked, with transglobal corporations that will help to deliver a successful Olympics in 2012. The report finishes with a call to evaluate the work that PD does, to reach out and engage. PD cannot afford, as I see it, to be aloof, distant, ultra conservative and dismissive of social networking sites.

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.

Noel Coward the Citizen Diplomat: From Establishment Propagandist to Underworld Promoter 1942-1969

During the Second World War star names were used to promote the armed forces and to help folks at home feel at ease and patriotic about the war. In this respect one of the most famous names involved was Noel Coward, the famous English playwright, composer, director, actor and singer. He was a personal favourite of the last Queen Mother. I am looking in this blog post at the image when Britain was at war and then during peace time some 25 years later. The two Coward films I am drawing on are his collaboration with David Lean's "In which we serve" and his last film as an actor; "The Italian Job". Coward's life partner the actor Graham Payn, features in the 'Italian Job'as Coward's valet whilst in jail, he died in 2005.

Richard Attenborough who was a crew member on Coward's battleship played the gangster  'Pinkie' in the film'Brighton Rock'.

 "I am determined to travel through life first class." Noel Coward

Noel Coward had a very English style and presence that was very much a product of his time and place and he was a sort of parody of the English upper class style. He was a friend of Royalty and his songs, plays and films were largely  popular. So he was a good choice to star in a piece of wartime propaganda co-directed with the talented David Lean ( who made Ghandi, Laurence of Arabia, Passage to India).  It was financed by the Ministry of Information in 1942. It is a tour de force of propaganda. The film succeeds in presenting an image of national unity and social cohesion during wartime. At one point during filming Coward invited the Royal family onto the film set whilst it was in production. This visit was also filmed and used in patriotic news reels of the time. It was nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture but lost out to that other wartime classic Casablanca.

Noel Coward plays the navy captain, in a story based on the life and times of Lord Louis Mountbatten father of Prince Philip, in charge of a British destroyer which is involved in battles and is then sunk. While the crew are in the water clinging to the wreckage they reminisce about their lives at home. This acts as a device to remind the crew who and what they are fighting for. It is a genuinely morale boosting film.

 During the war Coward gave up on  the stage and sought a useful role for the state. He moved to Paris and worked for intelligence and in the British propaganda office, he once said that "if the policy of His Majesty's Government is to bore the Germans to death I don't think we have time". His role was to use his fame to influence American support for Britain during the war. He worked for the Secret Service and travelled widely as a result of which the press pilloried him. George VI, with some prompting from his wife no doubt, wanted to give Coward a knighthood for his war and lifetime achievements in 1942, but Winston Churchill objected at the time despite the release of the wartime film. Coward had been fined for contravening wartime currency regulations the year before. Churchill asked Coward to entertain the troops which he did with verve and success with songs like 'London Pride'. 

  

In the film 'The Italian Job' Coward plays a gangster in jail but has no hand in the direction. He mayhave had a hand in suggesting the scene above in which he addresses the crime syndicate managed by Michael Caine. The plan is to pull off a gold bullion heist in broad daylight in Turin, Italy under the watch of the Mafia and the Italian security forces. They spirit away the bullion in 3 minis in true Brit colours of red, blue and white. The heist happens after the approval of Bridger, played by Coward, who fronts the money after Charlie, Michael Caine, invades Parkhurst to have an audience with Bridger in the toilets. There's a certain playful irony in this scene and many others. Coward is the upper class gangster working with a crew of different classes and accents and a black coach driver.

I have chosen these films and Noel Coward to illustrate how propaganda films had changed  from wartime until peacetime Britain in 1969. 'The Italian Job' is a film caper in which the vehicles promoted play a distinct role. It is as much about Italian mafia and English gangsters as it is about Europe's ability to manufacture a car, coach or airplane.  Italy's Fiat Company and the British Motor Corporation which made the Mark I Austin Mini Cooper S; its full title, both have major products placed in the film but the Mini is the star kitemark. The year the film came out is the year that the Mini marque was created. Coward's destroyer battleship is the star in  the 1942 film and at the start it declares that 'This is the story of a ship'. The team building and morale are important in both films. In 'The Italian Job' the team building is important amongst the toff and spiv drivers but not as important as the vehicles: Minis, Fiats and an orange Italian bulldozer that crushes an Aston Martin and a Jaguar and pushes them off the mountain. Later on the film lovingly lingers over shots of the Mini's as they are launched down the pristine Alpine scene. So what do these films say about aspects of cultural and public diplomacy. 

In this respect the messages are mixed ones. The 1942 film is morale boosting and patriotic while the 1969 film is patriotic and about the 'Self Preservation Society' rather than the 'Preservation Society' of war time. There is some comparison and distance between the two films as they portray changing times one during war and the other during peace. During the 50's and 60's there were many films about the 'black market' during the war and sometimes featured hoodlums selling their wares on the street. In war time certain people had access to certain desired items in short supply. This created a pent up demand in the population for fashionable items amongst women, the sort of items seen in films during the war years and then during austerity. Rationing of food and other items lasted  from 1939 to 1954. My own grandfather was seconded to the Ministry for Food from the Danish Bacon Company. The growth of the black market lead to an expansion of the underworld of the 'black market' and gangsterism. 'The Italian Job' is definitely not about delayed gratification and stoicism in war time.

The 1969 film looks at the 'black market' and the emerging of Europe as a market in 1969 which the UK plc is not yet a full member. The Italian Job as a propaganda piece sells London (and Croydon) and the Brits as smart, sexy, fashionable and colourful. It sells our ability, though on the wane, to manufacture sought after cars and vehicles. It also warns Europe that we can still win a football match away from home in far off Turin and attempt to sneak out some gold bullion at the same time. It says that our patriotic gangsters, the sons of wartime veterans, are just as fearsome and daring as your mafia though there may not be so much killing; perhaps a knee-capping or a broken leg instead. Fortunately 'The Italian Job' never mentions the war.

In his famous film guide the editor Leslie  Halliwell bemoans the changes in film making over the years since WW2. Film makers began "to despise their audiences....while putting across some garbled self satisfying message which is usually anti-establishment, anti-law and order and anti-entertainment". One could argue with the last point and say that 'The Italian Job' fits into the trend as anti-establishment and anti-law and order. One character in England football colours who is disabling the traffic cameras asks the way to the piazza in one scene and as he walks away blurts out 'Bloody foreigners!' just to get the message across and add to the 'cocking of the snook' gesture all ready within the film. It is an odd film, it is patriotic and an example of a distorted lens of public diplomacy. Rather like looking at relations between countries as if you were Nelson holding up the telescope to your eye patch. It could be seen as pro-business but anti-european. In favour of bi-lateralism of a sort but with a certain detachment. Halliwell also bemoaned that some saw significance in film that it did not deserve. I think these two films deserve to be looked at in the context of changing times in a fusion of anthropology, history and diplomacy. It is said that 'In which we serve' was an example of Coward underplaying his talents whereas he seems to be playing himself in The Italian Job. I would like to know what diplomats of the time made of his last film. The ending, which I will not give away, at least gave them some room to maneouvre. Or they could just as easily say 'Well it is only a film!'. The Mini is still one of the most influential cars ever made and is a definitively British brand. Let's call the film one long advert for the Mini but can we ultimately ignore the underworld story line. It did not seem to bother Noel Coward who finally got his knighthood in 1969.

(General Footnote: Coward's songs have inspired generations of artists:  Paul McCartney, Sting, Elton John, Robbie Williams, Pet Shop Boys, The Divine Comedy, Vic Reeves, Ian Bostridge, Damon Albarn, Michael Nyman, and Monty Python http://youtu.be/p9PiqCeLEmM  .)

^References

Richards, Dick. (1970) The Wit of Noël Coward, Sphere Books

   

^{http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/-v24607?r=allmovie}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Which_We_Serve

Halliwells Film Guide (1981) LeslieHalliwell, Granada Publishing, UK

The Underworld (1994) Duncan Campbell, BBC Books, London

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)

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

(1)http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/CivitasReviewMarch05.pdf

PM Blair and Pres. Bush "apologise"

http://youtu.be/7iRnxbcPgbE

Inside Iraq Al Jazeera 7th June 2010
http://youtu.be/B0Zg-OwnvWA

Review of Report: "Voices of America: US Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century"

The report I have chosen to write a brief review on is entitled Voices of America: US Public Diplomacy for the 21^st Century by Kristin M. Lord. According to Lord anti-American sentiment in the international community is hindering national interests thus it is important that America engage, persuade and attract more cooperation overseas through public diplomacy. Not only that, but it must do so in a world that has changed noticeably since American public diplomacy institutions were established. These days, public opinion matters more than ever before as technology becomes increasingly accessible and affordable. NGO’s, social movements and privately owned companies have seen increasing power of influence in terms relative to governance. Moreover, she mentions the existence of dangerous ideologies that encourage hostility towards the US and their allies. As a result she suggests that America needs new tactics, sturdier institutions, and modern approaches.

She remains very optimistic, and believes that the American government is ‘built on sound and appealing principals’ envied by many, despite the unpopularity of some of their policies. Furthermore, according to Lord the nation has overcome many obstacles in the past through ‘adaptation, ingenuity and effort’ and is rich in resources. These resources exist in the form of US businesses, educational institutions, charities, and technology which reach every corner of the world. In brief, in her opinion America is ‘well equipped’ to overcome any convoluted challenges of the present and future, however to do so, America must ‘rediscover and marshal existing strengths’, both internally and externally.

The report suggests some solid steps to help America’s efforts to connect, sway, and draw the support of the international community. In order to improve US public diplomacy, it proposes the establishment of a new efficient, public/private NGO, The USA-World Trust. By drawing on the support, inspiration, knowledge, and skill of US citizens and international partners alike, the USA-World Trust aims to:

• Present a more favourable perception of America to counterbalance the views sometimes promulgated by popular culture and foreign media
• contribute to an environment of mutual trust, respect, and understanding in which cooperation is more feasible
• promote shared values and their champions
• Guide and sustain the American government’s public diplomacy efforts via the sharing of knowledge.

All of the above will be carried out the following ways:

• · Carrying out research and analysis

• · Engage corporations, NGOs, and educational institutions to work on innovative initiatives

• · Provide grants and venture capital to endeavours that advance its objectives

• · Experiment with new technologies and media products, and

• · Organize gatherings of government practitioners, academics, and experts from private and non-profit sectors to address “public diplomacy and strategic communication challenges.”

Expert opinions stressed that this new organisation will not reach its full potential “if it is not part of a comprehensive effort to strengthen the government’s efforts to engage the world”. In response to expert criticisms, the report offers a few recommendations which can be seen by clicking on the image below:

Lord is aware that the above recommendations may not resolve all of America’s public diplomacy problems once and for all. However, she hopes that they represent a first and vital step towards constructing stronger relations with foreigners in order to serve American interests.

Aside from a couple of overstatements made, I found the report to be informative and the idea of establishing a USA-World Trust is rather innovative, it might just be what America needs to improve its image and public diplomacy. It definitely puts across the increasing importance of public diplomacy today, and it’s easier and more efficient when the government, the public and private sector, civil servants etc. work closely together. Public Diplomacy needs to be better co-ordinated and structured if it is to be resourceful and successful. Public opinion matters a lot, and without positive public opinion any country would face numerous difficulties and possible security threats and in this case, it is certainly what’s best for American national interests.

Multi-Track Diplomacy

Multi-track diplomacy stemmed from the inefficiency of pure government mediation. It is an extension of Track I and II diplomacy which has been widely used in conflict resolution for decades. By the 1990s as intrastate conflicts worsened the ineffectiveness of solely employing Track I diplomacy in obtaining international cooperation or conflict resolution became apparent. Hence, former diplomat Montville developed Track II diplomacy in order to include citizens with variety and skills into the mediation process.

Basically, Track I diplomacy is official government-to-government diplomatic communication and interaction whereas Track II diplomacy is the unofficial interaction and intervention of individual persons or bodies acting independently of a state or government. After realizing that grouping all Track II activities in one category did not encapsulate the convolutedness or scale of unofficial diplomacy, the co-founder of the Institute for Multi-Diplomacy (IMTD) Dr. Louise Diamond invented the term “multi-track diplomacy”. By 1991 both McDonald and Diamond had extended the number of Tracks to IX, take a closer look at Tracks III-IX by clicking on the image below:

According to the IMTD, the benefits of Tracks II to IX diplomacy is that they aid create an atmosphere that will welcome positive change carried out by Track I diplomacy and they ensure that government decisions are executed as they should be. The IMTD highlights that no one track is more important than the other. Each track has its own resources, principles, and methods, but they are all connected and function more effectively when they are coordinated. For instance, IMTD use its systems-based-approach by acknowledging that deep-rooted conflicts cannot be solely left in the hands of government officials. Non-governmental actors, civil society and other unofficial routes must be included in order to achieve long-term change. The IMTD carry out numerous projects worldwide and since 1992 have instigated and enabled a variety of conflict resolution and transformation projects in Europe, South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. Have a look at some of their open, general and closed projects here: http://www.imtd.org/archives/

Using the Royal Wedding as Cultural Diplomacy

The Royal Wedding was a great example of British culture that was seen around the world. On April, 29^th millions of people all over the globe tuned in to watch the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. Despite some of the British sentiments over the wedding and the views of the Royal family in general, the monarchy is still a huge part of British culture and the history of ‘old Britain’. Tourists flocked to Buckingham Palace, Westminster Abbey and other locations around the city to experience the historical event. With that many eyes on Britain for the wedding and next year for the Olympic Games, it is clear that the UK is getting some good publicity. An increase in tourism for events like this is great news for cultural diplomats. Being able to attract this many foreigners and having everything run smoothly is a great reflection on the country even if it was not an ‘official’ diplomacy activity. By exposing people to aspects of culture from other countries, they are more apt to listen to public diplomacy measure because they feel that they have a connection to events that happened abroad. It is unclear how to measure the success of any positive feedback the wedding produced because measuring public and cultural diplomacy is something that is not easy to accomplish. The effects of these things can take years to transpire and could perhaps only manifest in the lives of those who shared the experience and their views on the country.