FCO Public Diplomacy: the Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee FCO Public Diplomacy: The Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012 Second Report of Session 2010–11 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 26 January 2011 HC 581 Published on 6 February 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £14.50 The Foreign Affairs Committee The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated agencies. Current membership Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South), Chair Rt Hon Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East) Mr John Baron (Conservative, Basildon and Billericay) Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrats, North East Fife) Rt Hon Ann Clwyd (Labour, Cynon Valley) Mike Gapes (Labour, Ilford South) Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford) Mr Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw) Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling) Rory Stewart (Conservative, Penrith and The Border) Mr Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North) The following member was also a member of the Committee during the parliament: Emma Reynolds (Labour, Wolverhampton North East) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/facom. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Dr Robin James (Clerk), Mr Eliot Barrass (Second Clerk), Ms Adèle Brown (Committee Specialist), Dr Brigid Fowler (Committee Specialist), Mr Richard Dawson (Senior Committee Assistant), Jacqueline Cooksey (Committee Assistant), Mrs Catherine Close (Committee Assistant) and Mr Alex Paterson (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerks of the Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6394; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] FCO Public Diplomacy: The Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 Conclusions and recommendations 5 1 Introduction 9 2 Public diplomacy and the UK 10 Public diplomacy and ‘soft power’ 10 ‘Nation branding’ 11 The UK’s international reputation 12 The reputational impact of major sporting events: lessons from other countries 13 Spain 1992 14 Australia 2000 14 Germany 2006 14 China 2008 15 South Africa 2010 16 India 2010 16 3 The FCO’s strategy for the 2012 Olympics 18 The overall strategy 18 Changing the image of the UK: specific initiatives 19 The ‘See Britain (Through My Eyes)’ campaign 19 Initiatives by Posts 20 Next steps 20 Funding and organisation 22 Promotion of British values and security 23 Promotion of trade 24 Environmental issues 27 Risks 28 London Olympics or UK Olympics? 30 The Olympics: tradition and modernity 30 The Olympic Truce 32 Future scrutiny 32 Formal Minutes 33 Witnesses 34 List of written evidence 34 FCO Public Diplomacy: The Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012 3 Summary The 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games is likely to be a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity for the UK to attract the attention and interest of the entire global community. The FCO wants to exploit the public diplomacy and ‘soft power’ potential of the Games as a tool that its global network of Posts can use to help open doors and gain influence with key individuals and groups in specific countries, in pursuit of the UK’s interests. We welcome the many inventive proposals that the FCO has put forward for capitalising on the Games in its public diplomacy work. Many specific initiatives sponsored through its world-wide network of Posts display range, imagination and sensitivity. We encourage the FCO to continue with this campaign, and to give special emphasis to the excellent ‘International Inspirations’ programme. The FCO should spread the news that the 2012 Games will be “the world’s first sustainable Games”, with many examples of environmental good practice in the planning of the Games and at the Olympics site. It should continue to use the Games to “promote British culture and values at home and abroad”, and to support projects targeted at promoting British values to particular overseas audiences. The Games offer an unparalleled opportunity to promote UK business, trade and inward investment. We note the FCO’s stated commitment to seizing this opportunity. We conclude that it is important that the action matches the rhetoric. We recommend that, in addition to the activities already being planned, the Government should give urgent consideration to holding a trade event during the period before or during the Games, at a suitably large and accessible venue. The Games offer the prospect of enhancing the UK’s reputation in the world. Academic research shows that national reputations, especially of countries like the UK which are long-established actors on the world stage, tend to alter only gradually and in response to long-term trends. That being so, the FCO may be somewhat overstating the case when it claims that the Games will have “a profound impact on the UK’s international reputation”. Despite the many commendable specific initiatives, we are concerned that the overall message conveyed by the FCO’s campaign is somewhat ill-defined. The campaign should focus on sending out one overarching message. That message should be the one successfully deployed in the UK’s original Olympics bid, that London is an open and welcoming city, and that the UK is a diverse, inclusive and friendly country—in a word, that both London and the UK are generous. Such a message would help to redress some long-standing misperceptions of the UK. The 2012 Olympics pose potential reputational risks as well as opportunities for the UK. The FCO should prepare itself to take swift action to rebut or challenge negative stories appearing in the world media. The FCO’s public diplomacy work in connection with the Olympics should be regarded as a priority area. We note the shift to “no or low cost ways of doing business” following the emergency budget of June 2010. The FCO should keep the resourcing of this work under review, and should stand ready to restore some degree of central funding if it becomes apparent that it would be desirable and cost-effective to do so. 4 FCO Public Diplomacy: The Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012 The Games should be promoted not only as “the London Games” but also, where appropriate, as an event hosted by the entire UK. We have sought from the Government, and received, an assurance that the long-standing rights of freedom of expression and freedom to protest peacefully in the UK will not be suspended because of the Olympic Games. We have considered other issues including the relationship, in promotional terms, between the Games and the 2012 Diamond Jubilee, and the possibility of the FCO taking action to work towards international implementation of the United Nations’ ‘Olympic Truce’. We will continue to scrutinise the FCO’s public diplomacy work in the run-up to the Games. FCO Public Diplomacy: The Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012 5 Conclusions and recommendations 1. We conclude that the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games is likely to be a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity for the UK to attract the attention and interest of the entire global community. We note the academic research which shows that national reputations, especially of countries like the UK which are long-established actors on the world stage, tend to alter only gradually and in response to long-term trends. That being so, we think the FCO may be somewhat overstating the case when it claims that the Games will have “a profound impact on the UK’s international reputation”—and later in this Report we consider the danger that, if things go wrong, the Games could actually have an adverse effect on that reputation. (Paragraph 41) 2. Nonetheless, we welcome the many inventive proposals that the FCO has put forward for capitalising on the Games in its public diplomacy work. Many specific initiatives sponsored through its world-wide network of Posts display range, imagination and sensitivity. We are particularly impressed by the ‘International Inspirations’ programme, jointly organised by the FCO with UK Sport and the British Council, which aims to bring the benefits of sport to 12 million children in 20 countries. We recommend that the FCO should give high prominence to this programme in its public diplomacy work. (Paragraph 42) 3. We are concerned, however, that the overall message conveyed by the FCO’s campaign is somewhat bland and ill-defined. We recommend that the campaign should focus on sending out one overarching message. That message should be the one successfully deployed in the UK’s original Olympics bid, that London is an open and welcoming city, and that the UK is a diverse, inclusive and friendly country— that both London and the UK are, in a word, generous. Such a message would also help to redress some long-standing misperceptions of the UK. (Paragraph 43) 4. We conclude that, although it would be unrealistic to expect the FCO’s budget to remain unscathed at a time of economic stringency and public spending cuts, nonetheless it is important that the Department’s public diplomacy work in connection with the Olympics should be regarded, during the crucial 18 months leading up to the Games, as being a priority area.