[Guest contribution] Rethinking Global Diplomacy

Talyn Rahman-Figueroa is the founder of Grassroot Diplomat, and here she explains the significance of grassroot diplomacy

In protest to Tunisian President Ben Ali’s regime, fruit-vendor Mohamad Bouazizi set fire to himself on 4^th January 2011. His death was not in vain as the uprising spurred by his extreme action triggered regime change. Given the extreme lengths that thousands of people around the world have gone to call for change, the extent to which this was successfully achieved in Tunisia makes it an isolated incident.

People all over the world, regardless of their system of government, struggle to be heard and struggle to influence social reform. Even in democracies, where newspapers are filled with headlines of people crying out for change, we see little development. The Occupy Wall Street movement saw thousands of people protest against the international capitalist system, whilst thousands of students in the UK took to the streets to protest against rising tuition fees and its effects on social mobility. From Syrian citizens to Sri Lanka’s Tamils, from American activists to China’s Tibetan monks, people in every corner of the world are crying out to be heard. With little relative change, it begs the question, is anyone listening? Does my voice matter?

There has been some recognition of the growing divide between government and their population, and concepts such as public diplomacy and civil diplomacy have sought to address this. These concepts point to government efforts to build stronger communication with the societies that elect them and to delegate greater responsibility in building positive international relations to civil society. But is this enough to bridge the disunity between civil society and political leaders?

Public diplomacy is the means by which a sovereign state communicates with foreign publics, or with publics of the state that have emigrated overseas. Not only does it provide a welcome vehicle of transparent relations between governments and people, but it also makes it easier for members of the electorate to be clued-up on the activities of its elected representatives. Nevertheless public diplomacy is increasingly becoming a buzzword that diplomats pay mere lip service to. For example, when asked if their embassy was active in public diplomacy, one diplomat answered, “Yes, we have a Twitter account”.

Citizen diplomacy differs. Ordinary citizens are given agency in building relations between different countries, and so do not have to rely on government efforts. It is described as the process whereby individual members of civil society serve as a representative overseas of the country from which they come.

The Obama administration has been very vocal about the importance of citizen diplomacy, providing citizens with valuable opportunities to champion foreign relations themselves. However, this too is a one-way process undertaken by citizens, and does not implicate foreign relations between governments where policy is actually made. Even though anyone can become a citizen diplomat, an ordinary citizen is unlikely to contribute to the strengthening of international ties.

‘Grassroot diplomacy’ is an innovation that seeks to address present diplomatic shortcomings. It is a new form of political engagement, one that opens up diplomatic dialogue to citizens at a grassroots level so that they can finally become champions of their own foreign policy.

With nations that are increasingly interconnected, economically, politically or culturally, national events almost always have international repercussions. Take the eurozone or the approach taken by our government to counteract Iran’s nuclear threat, as but a few examples. Citizens now have a much larger stake in their governments’ policies than ever before, and diplomacy needs to adapt to the globalised age in a way that acknowledges this. Grassroot diplomacy meets this need.

The Government works for us, and so we should expect to be heard. In the age of grassroots diplomacy, and with the help of diplomatic consultation groups like Grassroot Diplomat, you and I can access our governments, have a voice, and help be the change we want to see. No other form of diplomacy recognises our stake in the policies of our government, and there are no other avenues for making a case to policy-makers of what we think should be done and how we are to be affected otherwise.

Distinct from lobbying, grassroot diplomacy is reserved for members of society who lack the institutional means to press for policy change. This means that groups and individuals from the grassroots are able to promote a social good and have their policy projects recognised by members of the Government. In turn, political leaders and diplomats are able to strengthen relationships with ordinary people that they are meant to serve. As a result, grassroots diplomacy facilitates a closer mutual relationship between policy-makers and ordinary citizens and bridges the gap between civil society and political leaders. It is the new means of solving international problems that gives voice to the people who are most affected by them.

[Guest Contribution] Putin’s ‘re-election’ faces empowered opposition

“I promised you we would win, and we won. Glory to Russia!” Those were the words of Vladimir Putin on the night his victory was declared. He now has a mandate to rule for six more years and, if the next elections are as disgracefully unfair as last month’s, it is likely he will rule for much longer.

Even if the elections had been free and fair, there was little chance Putin would have suffered a defeat. Under Putin, votes during the Russian presidential elections were always a vote for the Kremlin, the choice was simply between a direct or indirect vote. Putin’s electoral opponents were mediocre and unelectable, a motley crew of reactionaries, political dinosaurs and cowards. Perversely, pro-Putin sections accused credible opposition candidates of electoral discrepancies and so prevented them from running.

Putin once enjoyed the reputation of a pragmatist. He was portrayed as a man able to clean up the mess left by the violence and instability of the nineties. Now, there remains little doubt that Putin is an autocrat. In 2010, Wikileaks revealed that US diplomats refered to Putin’s Russia as “a virtual mafia state”, where “democracy has disappeared” and political corruption is rampant. Indeed under his rule, Russia was run by a criminal cartel of self-interested ex-KGB bureaucrats. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that his security forces have harrassed and, it is strongly suspected, murdered journalists; appointed sadistic sociopaths to the head of regional governments and his government also committed, what is slowly being accepted as, war crimes in Chechnya.

The line of the Putinist cabal and their supporters, including apologists in the West, is that Russia has no history of democracy, that the Russian people prefer being ruled by authority rather than be governed by popular will. The argument is that Russians have no desire to live in a free and secure society. That reason, liberalism and democracy have never succeeded in Russia is not because Russians harbour some self-hating desire to be subjugated. Rather, it is because whenever these ideals have come close to being realised, they have been stifled by violence and intimidation.

So what do the opposition do, now Putin has been re-elected?

Western leaders, while stressing the need to investigate allegations of electoral irregularties, have avoided outright condemnation. Therefore, first, those outside the country must start condemning Putin’s rule outright. For too long Putin has been allowed to continue in his criminal activity without Western leaders or expatriates openly criticising him. Russian opposition to Putin is hampered by its lack of a coherent and effective critique of Putin and the opposition needs the emboldening impact of foreign leaders taking a strong stance.

Secondly the Russian opposition must continue to take to the streets, as they have begun to do. Russia has a long history of toppling autocracy through popular, peaceful protest and Russian protesters have never been better equipped. The internet remains relatively free of state control and the opposition must use this to their advantage. In the context of state regulated press, the opposition can use the internet to to articulate their dissidence, to organise protests and to develop networks of support around the world. But, whatever happens, the opposition must challenge him, protest, challenge his rule.

Opposition to Putin is strong among the city-dwelling middle classes. It is from the remaining socially and geographically disparate groups that Putin draws his support. Putin announced his victory with tears rolling down his cheeks. Much was made of his tears – his tears of fear. Putin is scared, scared that the informed and active urban classes have woken up to the damage he has done to the country and woken up to his corrupt government. They are beginning to become cynical of his empty patriotism, his ridiculous cult of personality, and increasingly aware of the contempt he feels for them. Increasingly, Putin realises that his time is almost up.

As the third term of President Vladimir Putin looms, Russia stands at a crossroads. The potential success of this third term as president is, of course, up for debate. Some dictators have made concessions when they find their backs against the wall and of course Putin will do everything he can to stay ‘in power’. But the choice to be made at the crossroads is stark – either Putin will clamp down, becoming the tyrant he has shown the signs of becoming or he will be deposed by the Russian opposition. Between despotism and deposition, there is no middle ground.

Oliver Hotham is an undergraduate reading History at Queen Mary, University of London. He writing interests encompass politics, both domestic and international. He tweets @OliverHotham

[Guest contribution] Occupy Wall Street and the Left: a cautious embrace

In the shadow of what should have been the World Trade Centre, anarchists, punks, the unsatisfied and the disenfranchised gathered on September 17^th to protest against the disproportionate power of the US corporate elite. One month on, the Occupy Wall Street movement has its own Wikipedia page. But political parties have failed to realise the potential currency and potential implications of these protests; this is an opportunity to gain traction with voters at a time of widespread political malaise.

Hari Simran, a protester in Washington interviewed for Time magazine, put his finger on it; ‘the exact concrete solutions may not have materialised yet, but the wonderful thing about it is [that] we’re open to change and ready for some paradigm shift’. In fact, the greatest strength of the movement will be its ability to unite those who never imagined they’d be in agreement. Its capacity to pull in those who have a feeling of social disenfranchisement, those who can’t quite articulate exactly what’s wrong, and don’t profess to know the answers, means that the influence of the protests will be far deeper than its physical size suggests.

The unifying idea is bold and simple without being precise. How can the recent Tory conference tagline ‘Leadership for a Better Future’ hope to stand up against ‘Occupy Everything’? The movement undermined its critics when banners began to appear explaining ‘we are not disorganised, America just has too many issues’. Similarly, the London branch of the protests has seen participation by traveller groups, young intellectuals and old hand social activists. The combination of its inability to be pinned to any one group or issue means the protests’ appeal remains open to all. We only need look at the fact that since mid-September sign-ups for the Occupy Facebook page have doubled every three days to see the movement is rapidly growing .

This type of movement is not unprecedented. The Tea party movement began life on Twitter, and before long Ed Goeas, later a consultant for Michelle Bachman, was advising clients to avoid taking ownership of the message and instead to exploit the ‘consensus’. From gatherings of 120 people in Seattle, in 2010 the Tea Party was instrumental in delivering Republicans control of Congress. And, of course, the Arab Spring sentiment was broad enough to cover the political discontents of populations from Casablanca to Cairo. Without predicting the future of the movement, its predecessors suggest big things.

It’s high time the political Left learnt to use this type of protest to its advantage, embracing the fact that its traditional voting base has come out in droves in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement. A big advantage for the Left is the fact that the political Right are alienated by events like this. They marginalise their own core voters by supporting something which looks too close to anarchism for comfort, and appear out of touch if they don’t acknowledge its significance. What is David Cameron to do when his own political jingo of the ‘Big Society’ is repackaged and sent back with teeth? Labour need to jump on the bandwagon just as the Democrats have been with Obama admitting ‘we got sold out’. Just as Obama won in 2008 by picking up the ideological strands of young undecided voters and weaving them back into Democrat support, the liberal Left have an opportunity to reinvigorate their message with recent events.

The issues and opinions illustrated in Ed Milliband’s speech to the Labour Party conference are not out of tune with those expressed by the protesters. Whilst some have argued that his liberal stance left the party unelectable, the Occupy protests have proven them wrong. There are evident areas of overlap, and Labour should identify and build on these.

The methods, however, are key. Labour needs to show support for the movement and its sentiments, without promising to be the political solution to their grievances. To align too closely is dangerous; no-one knows the direction the protests will take. Moreover, there is a large majority in Britain for whom the protests are the summer riots by another name. Simon Jenkins has even written in The Guardian that the protests need ‘the threat of violence’ to be effective. Ed Milliband cannot afford to alienate those within the party positioned closer to the centre-ground. But these are reasons to be cautious, not to ignore the political potential of such a connection altogether.

A potentially troublesome issue could be the reluctance of the protesters to accept political ties. Many within the movement are stridently anti-establishment. However, one way to counter those who suggest that the protests have no answers would be for the leaders of the Occupy campaign to engage in policy discussions. To assuage any concerns about allying with a particular partisan agenda, the Left should get involved simply to set up a dialogue. No hard and fast link, but a strong message that if there is to be a political solution, the Labour party should be facilitating it. There are advantages for the protesters too in legitimising their cause.

This is a golden opportunity and one which Labour strategists need urgently to grab hold of. Ed’s message will be infinitely stronger if he can match his rhetoric to real activism. After all, which political party wouldn’t want to have the support of the strongest political protest movement in years, the 99%?

Katie Young is an undergraduate in History at Cambridge University. She writes on issues including American and UK politics and East Asian affairs.

[Guest contribution] The resources race: Chinese encroachment and western procrastination

The international community’s eye remains fixed on North Africa with the frantic search for fugitive Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi yet to reach its inevitable conclusion. As a result a significant event in Sub-Saharan Africa, one particularly pertinent for the global economy, has gone unnoticed. The event that occurred in Zambia was a presidential election. The election campaign drew to light an expanding phenomenon on the continent: China’s encroachment.

Incumbent Zambian president Rupiah Banda received considerable financial backing from a number of Chinese multinationals in the run-up to polling day, an unsurprising fact given Banda’s openness to Chinese investment over the past few years. What is surprising is that Banda lost, beaten by Michael Sata of the Patriotic Front, whose campaign questioned the increasing intrusion of scrupulous Chinese businessmen into the daily lives of ordinary Zambians.

This was a rare setback for Chinese interests on the continent, an area the People’s Republic has targeted as crucial for foreign direct investment. China have invested millions of dollars in Zambian projects in recent years and what remains to be seen is whether Sata can, or wants to, restrict Chinese influence in the country. China has taken a systematic approach to expropriating the natural wealth of Africa, taking advantage of Western procrastination on a continent the Europeans once dominated.

Today, Africa’s riches remain a well-known secret. Copper; cobalt; uranium; platinum and many other metal ores can be found in Africa’s bountiful soils. Yet it appears only the Chinese have recognised the true value of directly investing in the extraction of such riches on the continent.

Chinese Encroachment

The West is in direct competition with China for the world’s remaining untapped natural resources and, by extension, international reach and influence. Whilst the West has become mired in economic woe the Chinese economic engine has driven on relentlessly, experiencing only the smallest of sputters along the way. It is unsurprising therefore that Chinese companies have been more active in seeking out new places of investment, from the copper fields of Chile to the uranium mines of Sudan.

Chinese interest in Africa is not simply a moment of opportunism. Whilst Western countries are preoccupied with internal rumblings and international conflicts China has, since the turn of the twenty-first century, been investing in Africa, providing cheap resources for the People’s Republic and a plethora of new jobs and infrastructural improvements for several African nations. The West, on the other hand, has failed to react to such a promising premise, ensuring that for the foreseeable future it will be unable to wield the same influence that its Chinese rivals do on the continent.

Western Procrastination

Take Great Britain as an example. The British government and its companies are the third largest providers of foreign development investment in the world, investing millions more dollars each year than their Chinese counterparts overall. Furthermore, British foreign development investment stocks in Africa (over $10bn) amount to a greater sum than the Chinese equivalent, which in 2005 stood at around $1.6bn. However, whilst British investment remains narrowly focused on the oil industry and manufacturing enterprises, Chinese investment has been more diverse, targeting the more profitable mining industry. Additionally, Chinese investment in Africa is growing in percentage terms whilst British investment is declining.

Despite the volatile nature of Britain’s overseas resources, as highlighted by the Arab Spring and the unpredictability of the Middle East as a region, there has been no urgency to look for alternative sources. If Britain wants to remain a world power, its economic and political leaders need to take a more pragmatic approach to resource acquisition. Resources will continue to power the global economy in the near future. Even if Britain is no longer a world-leading manufacturer, which is no doubt a significant cause of its current economic troubles, possession of resources may well shape the British future by providing the necessary supplies to power a modern society.

A Question of Morality?

One argument against British investment in Africa is that foreign money is often used to prop up morally bankrupt regimes. There is truth in this assertion. The Chinese government has overlooked the human rights records of some of its key trading partners. Most notorious perhaps is Sudan, where Chinese money is believed to have been used by President Omar Al-Bashir to wage war in the troubled Darfur region. Questionable governments in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, and Algeria can also be said to have benefited from the influx of Chinese foreign development investment.

But whilst British human rights activists would be quick to decry such investment, a degree of self-examination is needed. Any country in the world can be seen as “morally bankrupt” depending on the viewer and the accepted values of their culture. It is very easy to pass judgement on others without looking at one’s own trading partners. The ties between Britain and Gadaffi’s Libya should offer a dose of reality.

In an ideal world we would be dictated by moral considerations. However during such trying times, the Western world, and Britain especially, needs to take a more ruthless approach in securing its future. The Chinese have taken such an attitude and look set to soon become the world’s greatest economic power.

Once again, Africa offers a case study for world geopolitics. As with the great Victorian explorers of the nineteenth century, Britain should once more penetrate the heart of darkness although this time without the guns.

Stefan Lang holds an undergraduate and masters degree in History & Politics from Birmingham University. He writes on issues including East Asian politics, African society and economic development.