The UACES: Exchanging ideas on Europe blog has an excellent post by Michael Siebert of the German Embassy in London (this came to my attention through John Brown’s blog on public diplomacy – a must read for anyone interested in PD). John quotes this part of Siebert’s post:
“As a member of the Political Department of the German Embassy in London, you wouldn’t expect me to dig my own grave, of course. But I can assure you that we are certainly not short of work! The role of embassies in Europe has changed remarkably in recent years. But it is still hugely important. Let me give you three examples. First, the embassy is in constant, direct and intensive dialogue with British government officials, members of parliament, think tanks, academia, NGOs, lobby groups, journalists, fellow-diplomats and many more. … Second, embassies today put more emphasis on ‘public diplomacy’ – the interaction with civil society and institutions in culture, media, business and research. So diplomats spend considerable time at conferences, workshops, meetings and well, yes, receptions, in order to proactively promote German political views and foster an accurate perception of modern Germany. Third, the nature of the expertise embassies in EU member states provide to their governments has changed. It makes no sense for diplomats to compete with worldwide media news coverage. To really make a difference for their national capitals, diplomats have to analyse the factors behind political decisions, such as the political culture of the host country, the mindset of politicians, media pressure and lobby interests.”
That is an excellent summary of what embassies do – and can do – for governments. It strikes me that this understanding of the role of embassies should have been part of the conversation during that last US presidential campaign about whether or not we should “talk to” states like Iran. Much of that debate was focused on whether or not Obama would personally talk to the Iranian leadership and, if so, under what conditions. It was a limited and limiting debate, especially as it did not take into account the ways in which states interact via embassies. Meetings between heads of state happen rarely, with much media attention and often are focused more on photo opportunities and less on substantive outcomes; it is the theatrical nature of summits. On the other hand, embassies establish and maintain relations that are both wide and deep, analyze unfolding events in a way only possible through a deep understanding of the political culture, and present nuanced (hopefully) representations of US policy and society to a wide variety of audiences and in many different venues. Embassies carry out ongoing programs like the Fulbright exchanges and the International Visitor program that brings handpicked leaders to the US. All of this work takes time, knowledge, patience; it takes being there and developing good judgement and establishing working relationships. Embassies are especially important in a country with which the US has difficult relations. Without an embassy doing its work day in and day out, analysts and policymakers in Washington are working with limited knowledge and limited ability to get out the US message to target audiences in the country in question. So, talking to our enemies (and to our friends in states some would label as enemies) is less about the occasional high-level meeting and more about the the many quieter conversations that happen every day. Understanding how diplomacy happens in our embassies should be an important part of how we make decisions about who to “talk to” and how we do so.
