A Future for Public Diplomacy?

With memories of Canadian leadership on global issues receding, renewed commitment under the Tories will be an uphill battle.

In a recent article on The Mark, I demonstrated that the paradigm for the delivery of Canadian international policy shifted fundamentally during the 1980s and ’90s. Over the course of those years, there was a deliberate move away from an emphasis on traditional, state-to-state interaction, and toward public diplomacy (PD). PD is a form of international political exchange that features diplomats communicating directly with foreign populations and cultivating partnerships with civil-society actors – NGOs, businesspeople, journalists, and academics. As I discussed before, the PD formula, in conjunction with the right combination of political will and bureaucratic skill, can produce impressive results, especially if directed towards projects with broad popular and media appeal, such as a land-mine ban or efforts to improve the lot of children in conflict zones.

Looking back, it can be seen that Canadian PD reached its apogee during Lloyd Axworthy’s years as foreign minister (1996-2000). At a time of severe government-wide cost-cutting, Canada fundamentally downsized its international ambitions, but that exercise was not translated into a retreat from the field. To be sure, the large-scale, long-range, potentially world-changing projects of the post-war decades – poverty eradication, conflict resolution, and global environmental conservation – were gone. In their place, Canadian officials proposed a series of special projects – such as curbs on the trading of “blood” diamonds and small arms – designed for implementation within media-friendly diplomatic niches. They did not always succeed, but each initiative featured a defined start and finish. Upon completion, the foreign minister could simply call a press conference, declare victory, and move on.

Axworthy very quickly learned how the use of soft power could make a virtue of necessity. Conventional diplomacy was still necessary, but it was no longer sufficient when it came to influencing foreign governments. That influence was best brought to bear through their publics, and through international public opinion, especially when compulsion was not an option and democratization had expanded the scope for exercising influence indirectly.