Shakespeare Lives
The British Council has published a report, to coincide with the 400th anniversary of William Shakespeare’s death entitled “All the World’s.” A full copy can be accessed here and is well worth a read by public diplomacy professionals and culture vultures alike. The report looks at how Shakespeare is viewed around the globe and the role his work can play to support the UK’s soft power.
The Shakespeare Lives campaign, led by the British Council in partnership with the FCO, VisitBritain and the GREAT campaign, is a global celebration of the influence of William Shakespeare on culture, language, education and society in this, the 400th year since his death. Once again, Britain’s cultural heritage and artistry is being masterfully showcased on the world stage.
The British Council’s report reveals a number of important insights into international perceptions of Shakespeare and how this impacts on how the world sees Britain in the world. The research shows that Shakespeare is now more popular in many other countries, including in major high growth economies and places of increasing geopolitical influence like India, than he is in the UK.
There is a strong association between liking Shakespeare and having a positive view of the UK and are therefore more likely to visit Britain as tourists or students and trade with British companies. 70% of those surveyed whose opinion of the UK is positively influenced by Shakespeare said that they want to visit the UK as a tourist, compared to only 37% of those whose opinion is negatively influenced by him. In this sense Shakespeare not only a soft power asset in itself but also acts a pathway into further appreciation of other aspects of contemporary UK culture.
The British Council’s report also makes a number of recommendations.
- People’s enjoyment of Shakespeare in their own languages suggests translations of his writing are likely to be an important way of improving his standing overseas.
- Shakespearean adaptations can form a valuable part of the UK’s international cultural festivals and seasons, such as the UK–India Season of Culture
- The research suggests that, for some people, experiencing adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays can have a more positive impact than studying them in school.
The Bard has universal appeal and his narratives speak to deeper human experiences that are understood and enjoyed in many different cultures and languages, although the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy hated him for his lack of historic and moral certainty. The German writer Goethe saw Shakespeare’s work as a rejection of French classicism and Christianity whilst Coriolanus was banned in US occupied Germany in 1945 because of its militaristic overtones and its use as a rallying cry by Fascists in the 1930s. It is this universality that has meant Shakespeare remains relevant to millions across the globe and continues to remain one of this country’s finest cultural exports.
Would Brexit Harm UK Soft Power?
The debate over the UK’s continued membership of the European Union is as much about Britain’s identity and place in the world as it is about economic prosperity. This is why the UK’s strong performance in nation brand and soft power rankings have been predominantly used by the Leave campaign in supporting their argument that the UK can thrive outside the EU.
Michael Gove, whose decision to campaign for Brexit has leant intellectual weight to the Leave campaign, cites in his Spectator “coming out” article that the UK’s top rank in Portland Communications 2015 Soft Power 30 survey is proof that Britain is strong enough to be a global power outside the bureaucratic EU with its undeserved and unwanted pretentions to statehood; as does the Eurosceptic Conservative MEP Dan Hannan in his Telegraph and Conservativehome columns. In January 2016 Leave.EU issued a media briefing that argued that the UK’s soft power could grow after Brest. Richard Tice, co-founder of Leave.EU, is quoted, “The key point is that the UK’s influence is not and never has been dependent on EU membership but can be enhanced by us leaving.”
The Remain camp have been reticent about celebrating UK soft power and tend to wrongly down-play the strength of British influence in the world for fear of playing into their opponents’ hands. So what effect would Brexit have on Britain’s nation brand and soft power?
Regardless of how outward looking or engaged the first post-Brexit UK government is, there will be widespread perceptions in Europe, Washington and the rest of the world, that Britain is turning inwards and taking a step back from its role as an important and responsible actor in world affairs. Whether a nation is considered to behave responsibility in international peace and security and if it is perceived to be welcoming of business, students and visitors contributes to its soft power are some of the attributes measured when ranking Nation Brand. UK soft power would immediately plummet after Brexit and would result in a sharp drop in cultural exchanges, inbound tourism, international students and exports. In turn this would limit foreign publics’ exposure to British culture and values.
Leaving the EU would also have long term implications for international perceptions of the UK as a welcoming nation that is an internationally engaged and responsible actor in the world, particularly as much of the rhetoric of the Leave campaign is focused upon issues of migration and asylum. Professor Joseph Nye, who coined the term “Soft Power” and who has done much to advance our understanding of how “From Britain’s strategic position, I would think [EU membership] gives you a second arrow in your quiver: you can do things directly as Britain and things through the European Union.”
Many of Britain’s greatest soft power assets are not dependent on the European Union. Our rich cultural heritage, our creative industries and our film industry have a huge impact on global perceptions of the UK. We have world class Universities that are the envy of the world and which shape and influence young minds and future leaders from across the globe. Organisations such as the British Council, VisitBritain and the BBC World Service compliment the work of the FCO; one of the largest and most professional diplomatic corps in the world. These attributes would still be there in the event Britain left the European Union.
However, our ability to utilise these attributes would be weakened by leaving the European Union. In February 2016 a number of University heads signed an open letter in the Sunday Times that argued that “leaving [the EU] would mean cutting ourselves off from unique support and established networks and would undermine the UK’s position as a global leader in science, arts and innovation.”
Sir John Major, former Conservative Prime Minister told a House of Lord Select Committee that the UK’s policy to erect a safe haven for Iraqi Kurds during the first Gulf War “was born in No. 10, taken to a European Union meeting that morning, endorsed there and, while we were getting it endorsed in Europe, the Foreign Office was contacting every member of the Commonwealth so that the idea of safe havens was approved in the United Nations, with the support of the European Union and the Commonwealth.”
Dr Robin Niblett, Director of Chatham House, made a similar argument in October 2015. Instead of the false choice between engaging with the EU or with the rest of the world the UK must instead consider the European Union as just one of its circles of influence. Europe is only the “inner circle” of three concentric spheres of influence that Britain has. The second circle includes the “Special Relationship” with the USA and the outer circle consists of the UK’s other bilateral and institutional relationships.
By using the wide network of international institutions that the UK is a member of, including the European Union, the UK is able to affect global change in pursuit of its national interests or in furthering humanitarian goals. The ability to build and mobilise networks of actors towards the advancement of an objective is what will separate successful and unsuccessful states in the future of foreign policy. By being a central actor across so many different networks, such as the EU, the Commonwealth, the United Nations Security Council, NATO and the G7, Britain is able to extend its influence in many different regions, spheres and contexts.
In this multipolar “G-Zero” international system, where no one power dominates, the ability to leverage your nation’s influence through international networks and institutions is key to promoting the national interest. Given the wide ranging economic, cultural and political cooperation that the European Union facilities between some of the world’s most developed countries, it is a very powerful tool for projecting UK influence across the globe.
UK and EU – Let there be spaces in our togetherness
The Lebanese-American poet and artist Kahlil Gibran, in his 1923 book The Prophet, describes how a man a woman should love one another. Almustafa, the titular prophet, is asked by his admirers about his view of marriage. His reply is both beautiful and illuminating: “But let there be spaces in your togetherness and let the winds of the heavens dance between you. Love one another but make not a bond of love: let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.” Gibran’s poetry often explored the universal nature of love and its connection to spirituality.
However, he could just as easily have been advising the UK Government on how it should engage with the European Union whilst also maintaining a distinctive Nation Brand and Soft Power capabilities. In March 2014, the House of Lords Select Committee on Soft Power and the UK’s Influence published a report entitled Persuasion and Power in the Modern World following an inquiry. One of conclusions of the report was that, “While the US is the UK’s close ally, and while the UK is a European power by history, geography and interests, there can be real soft power gains for the UK if it is seen to have a role and direction which is distinct—at least in some respects—from the broad American-led sphere of influence, and distinct from collective European Union endeavours.”
The report recognised the importance of both the “Special Relationship” and the European Union as useful means to achieve Soft Power gains. However, it also makes clear that in order to maintain a strong Nation Brand and be able to export its influence in pursuit of its national interests, the UK must be able to act unilaterally. The UK is better able to influence world events through networks and collective action, including through the European Union.
Nevertheless, there must be spaces in our togetherness.
Iran’s twin elections
The Islamic Republic of Iran is holding two sets of elections on Friday 26th February. The elections for the Assembly of Experts (Majles-e Khobragan Rahbari) and the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majles-e Showrā-ye Eslāmī), or Majles, will have far reaching consequences for the future shape of the Iranian state and could well define the nature political legitimacy in Iran for decades to come.
The Assembly of Experts is the Constitutional body in charge of the appointment of the Supreme Leader and is made up of 88 Islamic scholars and Jurists. It is increasingly likely that this body will at some time be called upon to select a new Supreme Leader during its next eight year term as the 75-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s health continues to deteriorate. The Supreme Leader recently underwent a series of operations for prostate cancer and rumours about his health have persisted.
As the spiritual and temporal leader of the Islamic Republic, with effective control of the key institutions of State, the next Supreme Leader will be able to stack the odds in favour of his allies through controlling the vetting of candidates and the appointment of officials. It is also likely that the next Supreme Leader will be in office when the clauses in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), that restrict Iran’s enrichment of Uranium, expire in 15 years’ time.
This is why Khamenei and his allies have long been on manoeuvres to secure the Assembly of Experts. Khamenei forced the Assembly to sack former President Hashemi Rafsanjani from the chairmanship of the body in 2011. Rafsanjani’s political rivalry with Khamenei has led him to grow closer the Reformists and he has been a supporter of Hassan Rouhani’s during his presidency and has supported Reformist candidates in this election. In March 2015, Khamenei’s office intervened again, and Rafsanjani lost the election for the Chairmanship of the Assembly to Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, a conservative and former head of the Judiciary.
The Chairman of the Guardian Council, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, had begun the process of side-lining the Rouhani, Rafsanjani and the reformists through mass disqualifications of candidates. To qualify for the Assembly Expert candidates must pass a written and oral test to demonstrate that they religiously qualify as a Mujtihad. Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic, who is closely aligned with Reformist figures, was barred from standing, along with thousands of other moderate candidates; a clear sign that the hardliners are attempting to prevent a Reformist resurgence.
It is not only the composition of the Assembly of Experts that could have a lasting effect on Iranian politics. The results of the Majles elections will decide whether Rouhani will be able to the secure the social and economic reforms promised during his election.
Both Rouhani and his Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, have been riding on a wave of popularity amongst Iranians since the nuclear deal was agreed to in July 2015. Consequently they have been attacked by hardliners in government and the press, who are deeply worried that Rouhani and his allies will use this opportunity to fill the Majles with centrist and Reformist members. They hope that by discrediting Rouhani’s achievements in securing the nuclear deal and linking him with the “seditionists” of the Green Movement, they can retain control of the Majles and oppose any reforms that Rouhani may try and make in the cultural sphere.
Although Rouhani as President chooses his cabinet all appointments must be approved by the Majles, which is currently dominated by the conservatives after the Guardian Council systematically disqualified many Reformist and independent candidates in the run up to the 2012 Parliamentary Elections. Three Reformist nominees for the Ministries of education; science research and technology; and Sport and Youth Affairs, were rejected by the Majles when proposed by Rouhani in 2013. In reality, a President does not have full control over his cabinet appointments and so controlling the Majles is of vital importance to Rouhani, particularly if he succeeds in winning a second term in 2017.
Currently the 290 member Majles is dominated by the conservatives after the Guardian Council systematically disqualified many Reformist candidates in the run up to the 2012 Parliamentary Elections. The Supreme Leader had been shaken by the popular protests against President Ahmadinejad’s rigged 2009 election and that some Reformist politicians had called for the release of the Green Movement’s leaders from house arrest. In total 750 candidates were disqualified by the Guardian Council, of which 35 were existing Parliamentarians.
Although the Guardian Council disqualified 90 per cent of the 3,000 Reformist parliamentary candidates it was later forced to announce on 6th February that it had approved an extra 1,500 parliamentary candidates for the election, following criticism from Rouhani, Rafsanjani and other Reformist figures.
Rouhani has challenged the current interpretation of the Constitution and the role the Guardian Council plays in elections. On 7th December 2015 Rouhani said, “My view of the Guardian Council is a constitutional view. The constitution sees the Guardian Council as a supervisor and we also see it as a supervisor.” He had previously questioned the role of the Guardian Council in a meeting with his Cabinet earlier that year in August. He said that the council was a “supervisor, not an administrator,” and that the role of administering the elections was the duty of his government.
Rouhani is unlikely to be successful in challenging this interpretation of the Guardian Council’s role whilst Khamenei is still alive. The results of the elections this Friday may affect the short term prospects of Rouhani’s Presidency but more importantly it has the potential to shape Iran’s institutions and change the balance of power between those who seek to govern through ideological purity and pragmatists who are will to be part of the international community.
The domestic has become international – How Trump is endangering US Soft Power
“Here is my first principle of foreign policy: good government at home.” So said William Gladstone, four-time Liberal Prime Minister, statesman and master rhetorician. He was speaking in November 1879 during the General Election campaign in Midlothian, but his words have special resonance in today’s globalised world of instant communication between individuals and global news networks, like our BBC World Service, or Russia Today and al Jazeera.
In setting out his first principle of foreign policy Gladstone made clear that it was the duty of government to create the conditions of wealth so to strengthen the State. However, he was also concerned about the importance of the “union and contentment” of the nation in achieving foreign policy objectives. It is becoming increasingly apparent that domestic political debates can impact how a nation is perceived by others and, consequently, its ability to prosecute its foreign policy.
Let us take the egregious example of Donald Trump’s campaign for the Republican Party’s nomination for President. Trump’s campaign has been highlighted by a series of controversial remarks about Mexicans, Muslims, and any other minority group that he can scapegoat in his populist diatribes that tap into a well of anger amongst some Americans. In July 2015 Trump raised eyebrows when he claimed that Mexican migrants were disproportionately to blame for violent criminality and sexual assaults in the US. Trump caused a minor diplomatic incident and lost business deals with five companies over his remarks.
However, it was Trump’s call for a complete ban of all Muslims entering the USA that brought international attention to the US primaries. Leaders from across the world came out to condemn his remarks, including key strategic allies of the West, such as Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. It is not only the Islamic world that has publically condemned Trump. The UK House of Commons even held a Westminster Hall debate on banning Donald Trump on entering the country; following a public petition signed by half a million people.
A Dubai based company stopped selling products from the Trump Home line of furniture at its chain of 190 lifestyle department stores in the Middle East, Africa and Pakistan. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was withering in his assessment of Trump: “A successful politician would not make such statement”. The US Presidential elections have always held great interest internationally because of America’s influence on the international system and global economy. However, such is the connectivity between individuals, NGOs and businesses across the world, the domestic is becoming international. Trump’s attempts to exploit the frustrations of ordinary Americans is having a direct impact on America’s ability to maintain its influence and achieve its diplomatic objectives.
Let us remember, Donald Trump is not an elected official or representative of the US government in any way. Nor is he, despite boasts of his huge wealth, a major stakeholder in the US’ vital national infrastructure. Yet he has angered Latin America, the Islamic world and the urban middle class across the globe; he has caused untold reputational damage to the US and fed into the narrative that many of America’s opponents would like to propagate. Trump’s candidacy is no longer a purely internal affair. His pronouncements are impacting on the wider Western world’s ability to counter the narrative of Islamic extremists that is finding currency in some parts of Middle Eastern society that distrust the US’ intention in the region. As UK Labour MP Jack Dromey put it in the recent debate on Trump, “Isis needs Donald Trump and Donald Trump need Isis”.
Max Boot, the eminent US security theorist, identified the problem when he wrote, “Trump doesn’t care about the damage he is doing to civil society, to the Republican Party, and to America’s international standing with his stupid, reprehensible ideas.” With the exemption those few countries that have complete control over their citizen’s access to information, the whole world can watch and read Trump’s ill-judged claims. The image the US is attempting to project to the world, of a tolerant, responsible and economically successful nation, is undermined by the way Trump has conducted himself during this election. Trump is doing real damage to US soft power at a time when the world is becoming both more complex and more connected. He is a Soft Power vacuum. Good government at home, and sensible, mature election discourse, is still the first principle of any successful foreign policy.
Taking a Soft Power Back-Bearing
Credit: Mary Kay Magistad
In a globally connected world soft power, the ability to achieve foreign policy objectives through attraction and persuasion, is of paramount importance to UK diplomacy. It converts international good will into export opportunities and has made British art, culture and creative industries known and admired across the world.
But how effective is soft power in addressing the most pressing challenges of international diplomacy in 2016? Can the attractiveness of British culture and values be of use beyond the economic sphere of promoting exports? There are metrics for examining the worth of the UK’s soft power. However, to consider the effect of UK soft power beyond the realm of economics we must examine global actors who attempt to block their citizens’ access to British cultural influences.
When John le Carré’s eponymous British spy George Smiley discovers that there has been a mole inside British intelligence he seeks not only to discover what damage has been done by this betrayal, but also to see what Moscow Central knew and what weaknesses they sought to disguise. Smiley rightly calls this a “back-bearing.”
For our purposes, we are interested in a soft power back-bearing. By examining which UK soft power initiatives cause the greatest concern to countries who challenge UK national interests we can take a back-bearing to find out which UK initiatives and campaigns have been effective in making the UK’s values, governance and culture attractive to civil society overseas.
In 2007 Russia ordered the British Council to close its regional offices in the country, ostensibly for acting “illegally” and violating Russian tax laws and contravening the Vienna Convention that governs diplomatic norm, although the then Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov revealed their true intentions directly linked this action with the UK’s investigation into murder in London of the Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko.
Russia had been cracking down increasingly on Western charities and NGOs operating on their soil, and still does. Three years prior to the closure of the Council’s regional offices the Russian tax police raided their Moscow office. In August 2007 Russia closed the last FM broadcast frequency of the BBC’s Russia service. Russia is in good company in its resist British culture influence. Belarus, Europe’s last dictatorship forced the British Council shut down its last office in 2000 because the “environment created by the regime severely limited the Council’s ability to achieve impact widely”.
With increased tensions between Russia the West over energy security, Ukraine and Syria, Russia believes that the UK is seeking to influence its internal politics through NGOs and “propaganda”. Many in the Kremlin believe that the colour revolutions and the Euromaidan movement in Ukraine were primarily driven by external subversion by the West, rather genuine popular movements. It was Western soft power, the attractiveness of its culture and values that played a role in the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe and in Ukraine’s pivot towards the European Union, rather than direct interference in the political process. As a result Russia is cracking down on international NGOs, Western cultural institutions and on practices that are seen as Western imports, such as LGBT rights.
2015 marked years since the Magna Carta, a document that, for the first time, constrained the power of rulers, guaranteed access to justice. Its principles have influenced democracy and the rule of law across the world. To commemorate this milestone in British history and its contribution to international justice, an original edition from Hereford Cathedral was taken on tour to seven countries, including China. The document was due to be displayed for students at the Renmin University in Beijing in October 2015. At short notice however, and with minimum explanation, the exhibition was forced to move to the Residence of the British Ambassador to China – a far more private setting. China also has the dubious honour of joining Uzbekistan and Pakistan in banning the BBC’s website in October 2014.
It is likely that the display was cancelled because of the Magna Carta is a powerful symbol of liberty, human rights, and the constraint of executive power – all things that the Communist Party of China feel threatened by. China may be opening up to the world through trade and its own efforts at cultural diplomacy but it is still wary of cultural infiltration by the West. In 2013 President Xi Jinping created a national security commission that identified five major security challenges, which included “dangerous Western influences.” Western soft power was ranked as an existential security threat along with terrorism and separatism. To combat the threat of Western influences the Commission issued a directive to local party committees, called “The Current Situation of the Ideological Front”, providing new restrictions on seven topics that would not were to be discussed in the media and universities. These included “Universal Values”, “Freedom of speech”, Crony Capitalism and Judicial Independence. That “Western influences” are deemed such a threat as to be censored and classed as an existential threat along with terrorism, is a clear indication that UK soft power is effective improving Chinese perceptions of British values.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has a deep distrust of the UK Government, both in terms of its current Revolutionary ideological antagonisms with the West, but also its sense of grievance against Britain’s imperial meddling in Iran’s politics. It is deeply paranoid about the foreign policy intentions of the West. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, who wields ultimate temporal and spiritual power in the Islamic Republic, believe that the intention of the West is still ultimately regime change and that the USA in particular cannot tolerate the existence of the Islamic Republic.
The Supreme Leader has been a close student of history and sees the threat of Western cultural to be not only a matter of guarding the purity of the Revolution, and therefore the legitimacy of his rule, but as an existential threat to the State. In an address on state television the Supreme Leader said: “More than Iran’s enemies need artillery, guns and so forth, they need to spread cultural values that lead to moral corruption”. Khamenei had observed that the decline and fall of the Soviet Union and success of the “velvet revolutions” in Eastern Europe were not brought about by Western military intervention but a deliberate political and cultural offensive based on winning over public opinion and challenging the ideology of communism.
As the former Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox MP is fond of reminding us – Khamenei is more afraid of McDonalds than he is of Mossad. Khamenei and the hardliners within the Islamic Republic know and fear the consequences of ordinary Iranians being exposed to Western values cultural influences such as universal humans rights, as well as dispelling public perceptions of Britain as a place of moral corruption and anti-Muslim prejudice. This is why the BBC online news site’s Persian version was blocked to Iranian internet users in 2006.
British soft power provides the mood music to which much conventional diplomacy takes place. In today’s brave new world individuals, even in repressive systems of government, are more empowered and more connected with the wider world. Communicating British values and influencing the public of foreign countries is become more important in protecting our national interests. As we have seen, the measures taken by foreign governments to block British soft power demonstrates that they fear its affects and they perceive that their interests lie in limiting or controlling Western and British influence in their countries.
Welcome to the Consulate
Welcome to the Consulate – an examination of world affairs. Here you read the latest analysis of international politics, diplomacy and soft power.
Whilst they may lack the prestige and political influence of Embassies in foreign capitals, as outposts providing visa services, export opportunities, and tourism and cultural promotion, Consulates are often a nation’s public face abroad. However, transnational terrorism and hostile crowds storming embassies, have transformed many Western consulates into fortresses. This has built barriers between diplomats and the public of the countries they are trying influence. Instead of projecting hospitality and openness, embassies now project fear and mistrust. As Steve Bloomfield, executive editor of the MONOCLE Magazine, recently put it, “an embassy still offers a nation’s first impression. What message are you sending when you’re locked away behind a blast wall?”
This blog will explore the some of the challenges facing countries seeking to export their culture, promote trade and extend their influence.
The Consulate 