What’s in a name?

This blog is an interpretation of an article which appeared in Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb 2002 Vol. 81, issue 1, written by Michael Howard.

This blog deals with the consequences of the Bush administration’s policy in naming the aftermath of the 911 attacks as “The War on Terror”. Four small words, it outlines, very clearly, the future stance the administration will take. It is the defining headline of the public relations campaign with which the US will engage its new enemy.

It was Colin Powell that first articulated the “War against Terrorism.” Michael Howard argues that the very use of the word “war” was to instill in the American public, (amongst others) a “war psychosis”; an expectation in the media and the public consciousness of all the things they associate with recent American wars, namely spectacular military action and quick, decisive results. These expectations were to prove a great hindrance in engaging an enemy that was never going to be subdued easily or quickly.

The British had engaged similar enemies in Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland and Malaysia. Instead of labeling them “wars”, the British engaged their foe under the heading of “emergencies”, which, while allowing their police and intelligence services enormous powers, they could still operate under a peacetime framework of civilian authority. The engagement of a terrorist enemy requires the winning of “hearts and minds”, the persuasion of the population that these terrorists are criminals rather than freedom fighters. This requires secrecy, intelligence, ruthlessness, covert action and, above all, patience. These objectives were rendered unobtainable by the media frenzy following the declaration of war on the terrorists.

The elevation of Osama bin Laden to the status of a centrally focused villain is seen as another public relations slip. Osama is now in a win/win situation. If he is killed he is a martyr, if he escapes, he is a hero to his cause. Perhaps the administration thought it necessary to elevate him to this position to gain support for action in Afghanistan, but why would the US need to garner support after the events of 911? Howard suggests the US needs an honorable disengagement, something that would satisfy the tabloids, so the US can get down to the laborious, out of public eye, counter terror operation necessary to defeating the terrorists.

Public and Cultural Diplomacy: Historical Perspectives

Public and Cultural Diplomacy: Historical Perspectives

Professor Jan Melissen Head of the Diplomatic Studies Programme at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations would timeframe the origins of public diplomacy as far back as the Bible or international relations in ancient Rome, Greece and Byzantium. However I must agree with Prof Melissen that the “real” public diplomacy started with the invention of the printing press, which certainly helps to enhance the communication with the foreign public. ‘It was not until the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century that the scale of official communication with foreign publics potentially altered.’ (Melissen 2007:3)There is often a certain amount of confusion (since the printing press was invented) in differentiating between public diplomacy and propaganda, Public Diplomacy seeks to promote the national interest of the state through understanding, informing and influencing foreign audiences; understandably this could be confusing, because i would argue that propaganda is aiming the same goals. Wilson Dizard, author of the book “Inventing Public Diplomacy” argues ‘that since propaganda can be based on fact, public diplomacy can be equated with propaganda i.e. ideas, information, or other material disseminated to win people over to a given doctrine. If based on falsehoods and untruths, while still propaganda, it is best described as "disinformation.’ Once again, Prof Melisen would argue that public diplomacy is ‘more than a form of propaganda conducted by diplomats.’ (Melissen 2007:11) I quite agree with the definition of public diplomacy – which in a way distinguishes public diplomacy from propaganda – by Professor and Head of Political Science at University of Minnesota: ‘public diplomacy is the process by which direct relations with people in a country are pursued to advance the interests and extend the values of those being represented’. In regards to cultural diplomacy, there is no connection between cultural diplomacy and propaganda, the clue is in the definition – which I did find quite interesting and comprehensive – by political scientist Milton C. Cummings ‘the exchange of ideas , information, values, systems, traditions, beliefs, and other aspects of culture with the intention of fostering mutual understanding.’ (http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en_culturaldiplomacy) But than again, as always when we are talking about international relations (in the last twenty years) I would differentiate – especially talking about PCD – between the period of time during the Cold War and the Post-Cold War period; any kind of information in the time of the Cold War was used as a weapon, diplomatic communication was limited or hugely influenced by the “cold relationship” between the West and East, and I would argue, that the PCD was conducted more as a propaganda in a sense as propaganda is defined; “information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.”


I would recommend Wilson Dizard’s book as an interesting reading about Public Diplomacy, there is no need to buy this book, it is possible to read it online at googlebooks :)

Today's TALK by diplomatic practitioner Caroline Clennell-Jaine

Today’s workshop/talk by diplomatic practitioner
Caroline Clennell-Jaine was an interesting, educational and informative for a few reasons, which I would like to briefly summarize.
First of all Ms Clennell-Jaine has opened her talk with an interesting opinion, that the diplomat – besides other significant qualities – should possess certain amount of a real life experience, which – according to Ms Clennell-Jaine – can help with day to day challenges.
Than we did watch a short video; What is public diplomacy…
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUWJm3KOTU4)

I have found three of the definitions of public diplomacy (PD) the most interesting.
• Ian Hardgreaves (former director, Strategic Communications UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

‘PD are the things that you do in order to help people to trust you more’

I definitely agree with this definition, obviously if “you” want to influence the others in any way or direction, “you” must gain their trust first. Than what? Is the action of trust gaining followed by sheer propaganda or by exposing your ideas and cultural values or your will over those people?

• According to the author Simon Anholt;

‘We don’t know what we mean by the PD, PD is a false term’

With all due respect to Mr. Anholt, I did find this statement quite pretentious, to be academically different for whatever reason and whatever cost.

• But the most clearly defining and probably the most educated and the most sane definition of PD has been articulated by Prof Nick Cull;

‘PD is conducting Foreign policy by engaging with the foreign public’


Actually the largest part of the talk was engaged with the defining of the PD. Ms Clennell-Jaine herself defined PD as
‘Aligning yourself with other organizations and individuals in order to gain strategic advantages.’

This definition is kind of the extension of the definition by Prof Cull. Than she extended her definition to; PD is about ‘possibilities to engage with real people’ (she did not define the term “real people”)


Overall, I did not find the talk intellectually stimulating enough but certainly challenging or better to say opening, and at the same time answering a few questions, after all it was not a talk given by an academic but by a practitioner.