EU CHALLENGES IN PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

European Union policymakers should themselves consider how better to speak, and listen, to America and the rest of the world. The European Union is punching well below its weight in communication terms.

There is no question that the European Union has enormous public diplomacy potential – the combined ‘infopolitik’ might of the 28 member states and the Commission is formidable.

However, political and administrative obstacles to a unified and integrated public diplomacy remain and policymakers should work to remove such obstacles. An invigorated public diplomacy has much to offer the Union in its approach to a host of issues including in its relations with the USA, China and Russia etc. In this context, member states need to assess the value of the EU institutions developing and improving their own international public profile, mindful of the fact that improved EU public diplomacy will not necessarily weaken member state public diplomacy. To date, the way that Europe and the EU communicate with third country publics is atomised and disjointed.  EU institutions should take pro-active international communication seriously, and the nature of that communication should be grounded in accurate and impartial information.

The ability of the EU generally, and the EEAS more specifically, to respond to rise of public diplomacy depends upon a number of inter-related factors. First, effective public diplomacy depends upon a clear understanding of what is to be communicated. This implies a keener sense of identity or what exactly the EU stands for on the international stage. What is it that is distinct about the international role of the EU?  The narrative of the EU has to be re-written. Public diplomacy demands some fundamental strategic thought and direction if it is to stand any chance of success.  In the absence of such an approach, the only message that risks being communicated to the Union’s external partners is one of confusion, the inability to address internal challenges accompanied by mounting doubts about the model of regional integration that the EU extols externally. This compromises  the legitimacy and authority of the EU’s public diplomacy, both at home and overseas. The second consideration is that the EU’s current external public diplomacy is highly decentralised.

Public diplomacy ought to be given a more central role within the EEAS proper, linking it to strategic communication and planning and, critically, to the delegations. The influx of national diplomats into the EEAS should be exploited to upgrade the general expertise in public diplomacy. More emphasis should be given to effective training for public diplomacy as well as for ‘e’ (public) diplomacy. The question of whether this can realistically be done depends in part on the political will of the EU’s leaders and those of the Member States to define the EU’s global role more accurately and to thus say something about the type of actor the Union is and should become. The rest depends upon human resources, skills and budgetary support at a time of mounting pressure at the national and EU levels.

Policy recommendations 

1) The context for public diplomacy: Further strategic elaboration is required in order to ascertain priorities between various sub-strategies and so that the nature of the EU’s actorness and the core ‘messages’ to be communicated externally are clearer.  This would also make it easier to establish a focus for public diplomacy efforts rather than risk disparate and potentially conflicting communication. It may also allow the EEAS and others to focus on key messages linked to priorities rather than the current scattershot approach. Less could be more

2) Move away from the information culture: Information is, undeniably, an integral part of public diplomacy. But it nevertheless remains a supporting effort for the wider public diplomacy aimed at creating sustained partnerships including, but going beyond, the government of the third country or region in question. There is a need to adopt longer-term perspectives on public diplomacy including, but going beyond the ‘information culture’  to stress dialogue or two-way communications. In some instances this may imply the development of a more ‘listening culture’

4) There is a need to involve DG TRADE more deeply in joint public diplomacy programmes in particular since this remains a critical part of the EU’s overall external public diplomacy.

5) Closer coordination within the EEAS: Public diplomacy remains disparate within the EEAS and could be facilitated by a clearer responsibilities and resources for Strategic Communication within the EEAS, including the transferral of the applicable funding elements from the Foreign Policy Instrument (FPI). The role of Special Representatives should be reconsidered and, in the event that senior figures in delegations assume their tasks, corresponding human and budgetary resources should be made available to the EEAS. This would grant the EEAS more autonomy in its public diplomacy but, at the same time, it would be accompanied by tighter coordination at higher levels

6) Closer coordination between the EEAS and the Member States: Public diplomacy at the national level exists, logically, to promote national goals and interests. Nevertheless, greater efforts could be made to promote the joint promotion of agreed goals in a mutually reinforcing manner through the relevant sections of national foreign ministries. 

7) Judicious use of e-diplomacy: Electronic (public) diplomacy offers powerful outreach potential, especially in regions where internet penetration and social media saturation is high or growing. It also needs to be treated with caution and its limitations recognised (often short-term and not necessarily ideal for communicating and promoting more complex messages)

8) Triumph of hope over resources: The financial and human resources devoted to the external aspects of EU public diplomacy currently limits the development of public diplomacy. A serious public diplomacy effort will require access to more substantial finances and expertise. It is, though, difficult to see how EU-level public diplomacy can develop within the existing constraints that apply equally to headquarters and many (but not all) delegations

9) Capacity building: Public diplomacy requires multiple skills and many of these are subject to minimal training and much of it is learnt on the job. Dedicated training should be offered to the relevant AD officials and, in the context of the delegations, those local staff supporting public diplomacy and this should include the requisite media skills, awareness of technologies and associated policy areas (intellectual property, third party rights, intellectual property etc). Existing Press and Information Officer regional seminars and common portals (like capacity4dev) offer useful models for inspiration

USA

There are four distinct areas of public diplomacy activity in the U.S.: general perception-oriented public diplomacy (e.g. correcting American public misperceptions of contemporary Europe); specific issue public diplomacy ; co-operative EU-US public diplomacy (identifying ways of working with the US government on, for example, public diplomacy strategies in the Middle East); competitive and conflictual EU-US public diplomacy (relating to issues of dispute between the EU and US)

The Delegation in the U.S. ought to recruit local government and media to the task of informing American audiences about the EU. In Brussels, there is no correspondent from CNN, Washington Post, NBC, NPR, Fox News or USA Today.

When reporting on Europe, the U.S. media has internalized a grand or meta narrative that Europe stumbles from crisis to crisis. More over, the EU is often difficult to understand, especially for journalists, economists and the general public. American journalists often rely on British journalists for information because of shared language.

European leaders both in the Member States and in Brussels need to back up specific messages with strong statements about progress being made.

It is the task of the EEAS to build a better Public Diplomacy strategy by

1. Engaging consistently with the U.S. media in ways that create understanding and developments.
2. Encourage European leaders to speak out and craft effective messages based on the EU Delegation in Washington field based knowledge of U.S. perceptions.
3. Create a sharper response to crisis that draws connections to the long term Policy Diplomacy strategy building blocks already in place.