The object of conferences is to discuss problems and find solutions that are so far as possible acceptable to all participants, and this process is carried on by the tradition-al methods of diplomacy. However, the flourishing of multilatertradition-al diplomacy since the foundation of the United Nations has resulted in a proliferation of international organ-isations, conferences and committees, and has brought with it an additional dimen-sion to traditional diplomacy: the phenomenon of group voting. Group interest does not normally override national interest, but where the national interest is not strong the group policy will be followed, mainly on the reasoning that strength lies in num-bers and in unity, but also because many states with the right to vote do not have the staff to research every issue that comes before them. It is also a particularly useful system for prearranging the election of officers and generally exchanging information on matters of mutual concern.
The fundamental types of group are:
Political and cultural, Economic development, Regional,
Economic treaty-linked states.
Among the major groups at the present time are:
• African group
• Asian group
• The European Union
• Group of Arab States
• Group of 77 (developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America, now over a hundred in number)
• Latin-American group
There are in addition ad hoc groups which form to protect their common interests in specific matters. For example in the law of the sea conferences members of the same political or regional group opposed each other in the Continental Shelf group, the group of territorialists (200 mile territorial sea), the fishing states group and the var-ious other ad hoc groups that came together on this particular issue.
For a comprehensive study of conference practice and procedure, conference management and conference diplomacy see Conference Diplomacy by Johan Kaufmann (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers).
‘We began the 19th century with the choice: whether or not to spread our nation from coast to coast. We began the 20th century with a choice: to harness the Industrial Revolution to our values. At the dawn of the 21st century we must now choose how to shape the forces of the Information Age and the Global Society.’
These are the words of President Clinton on the occasion of his inauguration as President of the United States for a second term of office: a historical survey of the two major issues that faced his country in the 19th and 20th centuries, and his view of the major challenge that would face his country in the coming century – namely the advent of the Information Age and the Global Society. And what may be deduced from his observation is that the relationships between the existing units of the Global Society – the sovereign independent states – will require management with ever-increasing skills and perception, as well as constant adaptation and an awareness of how the by-products of the Information Age – in particular the television – can be used or abused in the service of diplomacy.
The basis of diplomacy throughout the ages has been person-to-person commu-nication through the medium of envoys or ambassadors. But the term ‘diplomacy’
relates to the study of documents; and when considering the evolution of the various media of communication throughout history, it is evident that the written word – through the medium of the Press in particular – has had a significant influence on the formulation of foreign policy and on the processes of diplomacy; and a wary but mutually advantageous relationship has developed between diplomats and journalists and their counterparts in radio broadcasting. Now, in the age of the satellite dish and digitalisation, it is the impact of the audio-visual image that demands the diplomat’s attention.
The television revolution, which has burst upon the world with unexpected speed and as yet unpredictable effect, is a revolution affecting men’s minds. The increased availability of television has created a global awareness, motivating the mass of the world’s population to new visions and new ideas. The hundreds of millions who hith-erto have concerned themselves essentially with the survival of the family and the local community, now see themselves as part of a social and political unit with a voice in their country’s domestic and foreign policies. Moreover, the impact of the televi-sion revolution on policy formulation is both national and international.
Nationally, the television can influence the government’s foreign policy agenda by the selection and intensity of its news coverage. Every country has three elements to its foreign policy formulation: the rational, which is what the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on the advice of his or her diplomats considers to be in the best interests of the country; the political, which is what the government considers to be possible and
appropriate; and the emotional, which is what the public expects, based to a very large extent on what they have seen on the television. Until recently, the formulation of for-eign policy was primarily the concern of a literate, politically-conscious élite: now, the principal medium of information – the television – being ubiquitous and no longer elitist, or requiring literacy, has the power to arouse emotions and create uninformed opinion throughout all strata of society.
Internationally – and it is a little more than a decade since coverage by satellite became effectively international – television has brought about a structural revolu-tion: the creation of the ‘Global Society’. It has:
(a) enhanced the sense of global involvement and responsibility by the immediacy of its news coverage;
(b) created an increased awareness of humanitarian needs and concern for the envi-ronment;
(c) created for diplomats a new dimension to traditional Public Diplomacy which has two major components: it enables a country to influence another country’s foreign policy by appealing directly to that country’s public opinion over the head of the government; and it provides scope for Media Diplomacy which may be described as a process of negotiation whereby governments utilise the medium of television in order to make public statements of policy relating to other countries, with a view to influencing the outcome of a dispute. Above all, it has had a profound effect on the development of Disinformation Diplomacy and Media Management both in domestic politics and in the conduct of inter-state relations.
The situation has now been reached where international television companies not only seek interviews with diplomats to help fill their daily ‘news hole’ – a joint venture to the advantage of both parties; they also welcome, to an increasing extent, the Video News Release. This is a professionally produced video cassette which has three char-acteristics: it is suitable and attractive for television presentation; it can be produced and put into storage and brought out when its timing would produce the greatest impact; and it carries a message that the instigator wishes to put across to as wide an audience as possible. There are more than a hundred firms engaged in the production of Video News Releases in the UK alone. Customers are mainly governments and Non-governmental Organisations, and the VNRs often provide a sporting event or touristic attraction as a foreground to the real message that they wish to put across.
Major NGO users of VNRs are environmental organisations, charities aid organisa-tions and other special interest groups, and they rely for their success on the profound observation that ‘Man has a natural craving to be distracted and entertained’. The Video News Release is essentially entertainment but with a hidden message.
These developments are all relatively innocent, and reflect the ability of govern-ments and others to adapt their processes of diplomacy and persuasion to the chang-ing possibilities of the times; but this advance of technology can brchang-ing dangers as well as benefits, in the form of disinformation and misinformation. Disinformation is a form of deliberate deceit – a practice which is by no means new to diplomacy, and can normally be detected (provided that it is not subliminal) and countered.
Misinformation is also the provision of a false image, but in this case without evil or deliberate intent, and often without the producer’s awareness of his or her own decep-tion. It is, however, a real danger on account of the impact that it has on the emotion-al input into the formulation of foreign policy. The major components of Misinformation are:
Technical Limitations. Camera crews cost money, and are only sent where there is likely to be the most action and excitement. Hence the saying ‘News is where the camera is’.
Selective perception and subjectivity. However objective producers may be, they inevitably have a personal perception of what is important and what is not; what is right and what is wrong. Moreover, they do not just want to be reporters of events: they want to make an impact on society.
Cultural limitations. These are an important factor because people of different regions and cultures become accustomed to judging certain countries or situations from a fixed viewpoint: and what is more they are not readily receptive to a change. When President Bush, standing on the steps of the White House, put his arm around the then President de Klerk of South Africa soon after the end of Apartheid and said
‘who would have thought, a year ago, that we two would be standing here’ he exemplified the fact that reports from South Africa were expected to accord with the American perception of the time. But apartheid did not end suddenly – it had been disappearing gradually for several years – but no journalist and very few diplomats dared to say so because it was contrary to conventional wisdom – to what people at home had wanted to believe and had grown accustomed to believ-ing.
Personal political commitment is something that all producers will have; and perhaps without realising it and certainly not intending it, they will allow it to influence their work.
Dramatised reporting marks a stage in the evolution of the theatre and the concept of
‘Art for Art’s sake’, and is a major distorting factor. All television producers aim to create good viewing, good theatre. They want the praise of their fellow produc-ers for being good at their job; and if that involves a little exaggeration or the manipulation of facts in order to produce an exciting and stimulating effect it can be justified on the grounds that all television – the ‘docudrama’ as an example – is an extension of the theatre, an emotional experience and thus a legitimate con-tribution to the entertainment industry.
Post-fabricated reporting. Camera crews can rarely be on the spot when an event occurs, just as the fire brigade can rarely be there when the fire breaks out – but they can be there soon after. The consequence is that many of the events seen on television are replays of what took place earlier on: faithful replays – but post-fab-ricated nevertheless.
The Media Law of Demand and Supply is based on the fact that the demand for news is constant and relentless, and producers may sometimes be forced to broadcast whatever they can find: which is where the Video News Release comes into its own. It is no good announcing ‘This is the 9 o’clock news – oh sorry we haven’t
got any news today: here is a Western instead’. News creation is at times inevitable.
The Magnifier Effect comes into play when minor incidents are magnified out of all significance. Crowd scenes can be manufactured on the basis of a small gathering, and impressions are created by generalising from the particular.
The need to simplify, personalise and demonise. An audience can often more easily identify with an individual politician than with a country; and if there is a conflict situation they need to be able to identify the Good Guy from the Bad Guy.
This new situation has imposed an obligation on diplomats to become proficient in the skill of Media Presentation, both nationally and internationally: nationally because a country’s foreign policy, in order to be effective, requires a high degree of popular support – or at least understanding – and a diplomat should be prepared to explain and justify his government’s policy to his own people in the most effective manner which is the wide-reaching, audio-visual medium of the television; and inter-nationally by diplomats en poste because every opportunity should be taken of improving the country’s image abroad to as wide an audience as possible, and to explain and justify its actions. They may or may not seek it, but it will catch up with them one day. Appearing on television is a grave responsibility, with serious conse-quences if it is handled badly, a benefit for their country if handled well; and since television is in many ways a modern method of ‘Diplomatic Representation’ supple-menting influence with the political élite by influencing the public, they must react positively and professionally to the opportunities that are offered to them.