 |
|
PUBLIC
DIPLOMACY - Pamela H. Smith
|
|
|
WHAT'S NEXT?
Whats next?
Now its time to look into the future a bit, to see what trends public diplomacy
may face in the coming decades, and then I will stop and take questions.
My belief, given the geopolitical trends already underway, is that we will be seeing
governments engaging in more public diplomacy, not less. Furthermore, I believe that
openness, or transparency as its fashionably called, will become a more common
attribute of governments, businesses and international organizations. Along with
transparency will blossom collaboration and less hierarchical processes of governing, less
top-down decision-making and more bottom-up and collaborative policy-making. Public
opinion will demand it. I heard recently of an example of how this might look: a White
House advisor recently was tasked with developing guidelines for regulating a certain kind
of international commerce. Rather than drafting what he and his experts thought best and
then sending it up the chain of command, he first posted it on the White House Website for
comment and input from whomever was interested. The result was a set of guidelines far
better than any closed-circuit team could have devised, plus he had buy-in thanks to the
collaborative approach. Even better, enough people and governments had seen the guidelines
that they started developing compatible regulations themselves.
The next prediction is that successful leaders in international endeavors will
themselves become more adept at using the tools of pubic diplomacy to gain support for
their positions. Public diplomacy will no longer be a job just for certain specialists,
like press attaches and cultural attaches. Nearly everybody in an embassy will be engaged
in public diplomacy, especially the Ambassador and other senior officers. There will,
however, still be public diplomacy specialists, and they will be people who combine the
skills of systems managers, modern librarians, publishers, database experts, marketers and
cultural interpreters. They will advise the whole embassy team about how to target,
distribute, differentiate and authenticate information so it is as useful as possible. In
parallel to this trend, I expect that there will be a decreasing need to classify and
restrict information. The dynamic of everything about transparency in government and the
culture of the information revolution argues for openness.
The future will assuredly bring us further advances in the amount of information
available and reductions in its cost. Andrew Grove, the brilliant head of Intel
Corporation, has said about technology, "What can be done will be done."
Technology will become so simple and universal that it will "disappear," much as
books and telephones do for most of us now. The vehicle is simply not threatening or even
important. These developments will result in the death of distance as an important factor
in modern communications. The world will sort itself out into three major time and work
zones, the Americas, Europe/Africa, and Asia. Already, software companies are employing
workers in these three zones to keep projects going around the clock.
In this fast-moving environment, the people who know how to choose, sort, edit, and
authenticate information will become extremely valuable. I dont mean only in
diplomatic services, of course, but throughout the workforce. The sought-after experts
will be what we now are beginning to call "knowledge workers." And the
institutions and nations that lead or play an influential role in the information
revolution will have the advantage, the power, and the rewards.
In the information-rich world evolving before us, does the "virtual embassy"
have a role? Can we depend on digital video conferences, Websites and real-audio news
feeds to carry the public diplomacy of the future? Probably not. This same dismal outcome
was predicted when the telegraph was invented and it did not happen. Human beings seem to
need live representatives in order for important business to be conducted, especially when
cultural differences are involved. Trust and mutual respect seem best to be obtained by
people on the ground. I doubt that will change. We will probably see virtual teams of
experts assembled by our foreign ministries, tasking people who possess particular
expertise wherever they are stationed around the world to team up with headquarters
colleagues to discuss problems electronically and formulate solutions. Canada is already a
leader in doing this, I understand, having discovered that a wide-bandwidth platform
between its headquarters and embassies produces efficiencies and savings that more than
justify the initial cost outlay. In any case, virtual foreign policy and public diplomacy
teams should work well, as in-house trust will already have been established. Such teams
could be expanded to include NGOs or other entities. But I expect to see real embassies
and real diplomats - and public diplomacy practitioners - well into the future.
|