From the same report
=======
264.Mr Roy-Chaudhury said that there was some interest from India in “re-energising the Commonwealth and on stepping up India’s role” in it. The UK and India could work together to some extent, but although India had “found a new rationale for the Commonwealth”, this “will not necessarily coincide with the UK’s views”. India looked at the Commonwealth “from its own national interest perspective”, considering issues such as “How do you deal with small states in the Commonwealth with which India does not have diplomatic relations?” Delhi would “try to shift the traditional Commonwealth human rights-based approach to one that focuses on capacity development and so on”.
446
283.The policies of major powers—Russia, China and increasingly the United States—present considerable challenges to the multilateral institutions that underpin this order. Yet many of the problems facing states, such as climate change, terrorism and migration, are increasingly complex and trans-national. The Government should make the defence of the rules-based international order a central theme of all its bilateral relationships. This is particularly important in the UK’s engagement with the US, China, Russia and emerging powers such as India.
287.The UK should be a vocal champion of reform to international institutions. It should support reforms both to make these institutions more efficient, and to give a greater voice to emerging powers—particularly China and India—to build their support for the rules-based international order.
322.To maintain its influence and leadership on global issues, the UK needs a more agile, creative and entrepreneurial approach to foreign policy. It has an opportunity to demonstrate its value to old allies—such as the US—and other partners—such as India—by harnessing niche areas of UK expertise, such as cyber security and business and human rights.
363.Since 2010 the Government has included international students in its migration figures. Sir Ciarán Devane said that the British Council had “a long-held position that student numbers should not be in the net migration numbers. They are a deterrence. It is very bad for the UK brand in places such as India, which really matter.”
605 The House of Lords Committee on Soft Power and the UK’s Influence described this policy to be “not only destructive of the UK’s attractiveness and international links, but … disingenuous”, and recommended that students should be removed from net migration targets.
606
328.Work on the wider diplomatic network was also under way. Lord Ricketts said that the FCO had “been adapting for some years to the emergence of China and India”, as well as increasing its presence in South Africa and Brazil.
555 Lord Hague thought there was “still a long way to go in Latin America and south-east Asia to make it clear that Britain is expanding and wants closer links”.
556
Digital diplomacy and countering propaganda
372.We considered how digital and communications technology have affected UK diplomacy. Ms Bronnert said that new technologies were “changing the way that we do all sorts of things … In the Foreign Office we have used digital and social media capabilities quite extensively. We have been one of the foreign ministries that have blazed a trail in this area in the creative use of new technologies.”
617 Mr Fletcher said that “diplomats around the world” were now “much better equipped with technology that allows them to be fleet-footed, flexible and better at information gathering and sharing than they were two or three years ago.”
618
373.The FCO said it used “our own digital channels and partnerships to state clearly our position, rebut negative perceptions and deliver policy through influencing foreign governments, civil society and/or influencers.”
619 Whitehall had “a programme of efforts designed to understand, attribute and counter the phenomenon often referred to as ‘Fake News’”, and was “the lead partner on communications in the Global Coalition against Daesh”. The Global Coalition had “been contesting the online space with concerted campaigns to undermine the Daesh message and brand”, used “messaging to promote positive narratives”, and undertaken “off-line activities to reduce Daesh’s ability to spread their activities on social media and websites.”
620
374.Dr Bolt, however, thought the UK “ill-equipped” to deal with the “conversations, discourses, attitudes, ideas or public opinion” that result from digital technologies. He did “not see a strategic understanding of the use of information or how to position that understanding in a very dynamic climate”.
621
375.Mr Wells said that the FCO and DfID had “gone past the stage of seeing digital and data as a way of measuring outcomes and reporting things to seeing how they can use it to shape and create outcomes.” For example, DfID was now helping countries to build data infrastructure.
622Dr Becky Faith, Research Fellow, Institute for Development Studies, praised DfID’s recent
Doing development in a digital world strategy, although it was “important not to exaggerate the possibilities of digital technologies to transform developments”.
623
376.Dr Futter said the speed of crisis decision-making had been accelerated by technological developments, including in the media. Had the Cuban missile crisis happened today, “in a real-time, digital news media frenzy”, there was “no way that the President would have time. You would probably have CNN reporting directly.” This was “a whole new different way of thinking about a crisis and different capabilities.”
624 Ms Thornberry said the world had ‘shrunk’ and that “people want immediate reactions to what is going on without the chance to think through what is happening in what can be extremely complex situations.”
625 Tom Fletcher said that diplomats had to be “careful … not to be buffeted by the latest gadget or the latest tweet from the White House at 3 o’clock in the morning, and to focus instead on the essentials of the craft.”
377.Diplomacy mattered “more than ever in the digital age”—it was essential to address “the crisis of trust” and “the gulf between governments and technology leaders when it comes to discussing the challenges and opportunities of technology”. Diplomats needed to “master the new tools at our disposal and [try] to get better at connecting with people and reaching out … to … new groups of people who we did not have to engage with previously.”
626 Professor Miskimmon and Professor O’Loughlin said digital diplomacy should be used “across all … fields” as “part of a balanced, hybrid communication strategy involving broadcast, radio and face-to-face communication too”.
627
378.Dr Duncombe recommended more training for diplomats on using social media and how to recognise propaganda and disinformation.
628She also proposed the appointment of “an ambassador for digital, tech or cyber affairs to contend with the evolution of online space as another geopolitical area within which the UK can pursue its national interests.”
629
