Guerilla Diplomacy Presented by Daryl Copeland March 8, 2010 On the 8 th of March, the NZIIA (Auckland branch) was fortunate enough to hear Daryl Copeland talk about his recently published book Guerrilla Diplomacy: Rethinking International Relations for the Globalization Age . Daryl Copeland is an analyst, writer and educator on international policy, global issues, diplomacy and public management. Now mainly involved academia, his time as a Canadian Diplomat (1981 to 2009) with stints in Thailand, Ethiopia, New Zealand and Malaysia, clearly influenced his writing of his book. Three key points of Diplomacy as relevant instrument for International Relations: As an introduction, Daryl Copeland used the story of Shahrazad and the Persian King (from One thousand and One Nights ) to illustrate the relevance of diplomacy as an instrument for International Relations: 1. “use your head”: bring one‟s intellect and any other comparative advantage to wherever one operates 2. “talk don‟t fight”: diplomacy is different from other international policy instruments because it privileges talking over fighting. 3. Keep talking until a favourable outcome is achieved, that is “until the executioner is sent home”. Summary of Copeland’s book: The central argument of his book is that if development is part of security in globalization age, then diplomacy must replace defence at the centre of international policy. Definition of terms: Defining his terms, Copeland sees development as: human-centred development that is long-term, equitable, and sustainable. Development is a process, not an end in itself. It is akin to when people are able to attain their full potential without obstacle. Copeland makes a point of distinguishing between security and defence. Certainly not a pacifist, he acknowledges that “admirals, generals and bombs” do have a role to play. Security and development are “two sides of the same coin”. However, where and when we do see insecurity and underdevelopment Governments “all to quickly reach for the gun”. Describing globalisation in a positive light as a successor to the cold war age, Copeland reminded his audience of “definite winners and losers” and described this force as polarising. According to Copeland, diplomacy is an approach to the management of international relations that is characterised by negotiation, compromise and dialogue. Sadly diplomacy has been marginalised. Today, workers in foreign ministries around the world don‟t actually do a whole lot of diplomacy: they work a lot instead in areas such as foreign trade promotion, consular services, performance management, and complete “endless” internal strategic reviews. Privileging and over-use of defence? To Copeland, defence has “almost everywhere” achieved the lion‟s share of resources, often at expense of other international policy instruments such as diplomacy. In recent years, defence has attracted tasks not really appropriate for military: armed forces are primarily hard-power instruments designed to compel adversaries to submit to another‟s will. For example, Copeland questions the role of military in strategic communications, cross-cultural exchanges and post-conflict reconstruction. In the recent case of Haiti, why was the US military running the relief effort? In a reference to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), Copeland believes the enduring lesson of the cold war is that sometimes military instruments “work best when you don‟t use them”. Similarly, Copeland draws on the saying: “sword stays sharpest when you leave it in the scabbard”. Attempts at solving complex issues in international relations relying primarily on the military can result in a blunt instrument and a real mess. Three myths central to the rethinking of International Relations: Firstly, Diplomacy is still seen to be about weakness and appeasement, having never recovered from Chamberlain and Munich. Contrary to this view, Copeland sees diplomacy as “our best hope for dealings with fundamental threats and challenges of the twenty-first century”. This is because diplomacy brings two aspects to the table: Knowledge-driven problem solving that is required to counter threats such as climate change, pandemic disease, bio-diversity, species extinction, resource scarcity which you can‟t address with military force: one “can‟t call on air-strike on climate change”. A capacity to undertake “complex balancing” which builds on classic balancing of a by-gone era when power discernable (eg: army size, population, empire etc). In the twenty-first century, Copeland sees a “Hetero-polar world” instead, made up of poles with very different sources of power. The US for example is the world‟s leading military power; China the world‟s manufacturer; India the world‟s “back-office”, call centre, providing services in English for very little with a highly-skilled labour force; Brazil leader of the global south; Russia the world‟s major resource pole, energy supplier to Europe which is highly skilled at diplomacy; Europe the world‟s soft-power (the power of attraction) is characterised by liveable cities, excellent public infrastructure, social safety nets that work, social democracy and a rich culture. So, sources of power and influence are difficult to compare. As a result, Copeland sees the need for “complex balancing” - a skill which will be the realm of the Guerrilla Diplomat. Secondly, security is incorrectly seen to be a martial-art. Drawing on human security, Copeland believes that if an individual is insecure (ie: they suffer intense anxiety, exploitation, resentment, and alienation) this is a basis for insecurity. If an individual is free from want, free from fear and feels secure, they are much less likely to put on an explosive vest and blown themselves up, along with many others. Thirdly, important aspects of the Cold War have not yet ended. The priority threat for international policy continues to be seen incorrectly as terrorism. Over-emphasis of terrorism as a primary threat is sustained by “Intellectual baggage” carried over from the Cold War which is illustrated through continuity such as the following: A binary world-view that is black and white. The “with us or against us”, Mantra of the US neoconservative elite espoused in the „War on Terror‟ was a hang-over from the „free‟ versus the „communist‟ world of the Cold War era. The terrorist threat is universal and undifferentiated. Terrorism had a global war declared against it. It is undifferentiated in that Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, the Taleban, Islamic Jihad and others are “thrown into the bucket” and seen as a single threat. This universal and undifferentiated nature is again a continuity from „communists‟ as being everywhere: the USSR to Africa to Southeast Asia, even to Hollywood. All actors were grouped together and labelled the „Red Menace‟ which needed to be fought. The third carry-over from the Cold War era has been the „militarisation‟ of international policy, particularly in the US. Copeland drew from evidence such as that there are more musicians in the US military than there are diplomats working in the state department; and that the requested budget increase for the Pentagon in 2011 is more than the total spending for the entire State Department. Diplomacy is having trouble justifying its continued existence. A need to transform the foreign service: As some of the oldest government departments, foreign ministries worldwide suffer from conservatism, resistance to change, and entrenched bureaucratic culture. Copeland believes that authoritarian, hierarchic institutions are outdated in the globalisation age and do not always serve countries well. Ministries that are lean, mean, and very quick to respond should be the goal instead. Also, foreign ministries don‟t tend to reflect the populations they serve. The Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) does not reflect Canada‟s multi-cultural society. Most Western foreign services are similar: they reflect yesterday‟s “demographic” mix. Copeland proposes that spending considerable time and money attempting to make people effective overseas is wasteful when it is considerably easier to recruit talent from domestic diaspora communities. As a result, foreign ministries would not only look like the population it is serving, it would mean that the country would have better language and cross-cultural skills crucial to the conduct of diplomacy in the 21 st century. “Guerrilla Diplomacy”: what is it? Copeland distinguishes three kinds of diplomacy: traditional diplomacy, public diplomacy (“the new diplomacy) and guerrilla diplomacy. Traditional diplomacy involves envoys talking to one another about the business of government, what might be going on out there, rather than finding out for themselves. Borrowing from Mao, Copeland highlighted the importance of being “able to swim like a fish in the sea of the people” rather than flop about like a fish out of water, outside of the diplomatic compound. Many diplomats are “acutely uncomfortable” when they aren‟t conversing with other of their own ilk. Public diplomacy involves the diplomatic agent connecting directly with populations in order “to get them want what we want through the power of attraction” (Joseph Nye‟s concept of “soft power”). Public diplomacy leaves it to another country‟s population to bring their government “on board” aided by strategic use of the media, joint use of civil society, partnerships with likeminded groups. Such an approach to diplomacy makes sense for countries like New Zealand and Canada considering their limited hard power and shrinking relative places in the world. However, both NZ and Canada we have very strong international reputations or “positive brands”: something that one wants to work with and indeed can work with. According to Copeland, Soft power is the “fuel” of public diplomacy. A good brand brings a smile as opposed to a scowl to your interlocutor‟s face. Guerrilla Diplomacy is described as by Bruce Gregory, an advisor to former President Clinton, and a colleague of Copeland, as “public diplomacy on steroids”. Guerrilla Diplomacy takes public diplomacy into unfamiliar places, “into the storefront, into the favela, and into the conflict zone”.