Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 8 of 8 items for

  • Author or Editor: Andrew F. Cooper x
  • Search level: All x
Clear All

Abstract

This chapter examines the challenge of leader-centric populism to career diplomats in ministries of foreign affairs (MFA s). It focuses on the pressure diplomats have come under in the United Kingdom – especially in the context of Brexit – and the United States via the Trump administration, but also considers China, India and Brazil, which have featured the ascendancy of populist leaders. Using Hirschman’s template, it argues that diplomats (akin to other agents challenged by populist forces) have three options: loyalty, voice or exit. Loyalty, especially hyper-loyalty, is the most problematic choice. The expression of voice comes with abundant risks. And exit in traditionally liberal countries remains very different from the dynamic in authoritarian countries. Not only is there no physical exile, but departure from a career as a diplomat does not mean departure from public life more generally. This feature is especially obvious in the context of the ‘revolving door’ culture of the United States.

In: Ministries of Foreign Affairs in the World

The G20 and International Relations Theory is a model of what edited works have to offer. Many collections bring together loosely connected chapters and strain to add coherence. Often the Introduction is the only component that explicitly covers the core themes. With Steven Slaughter as editor such a problem is avoided in this work. Slaughter’s Introduction is valuable in itself, but just as importantly it provides guidelines for the contributions that, for the most part, are followed. Each takes a major theory in International Relations (IR) scholarship and applies the theoretical framework to the G20. To be sure, the

In: European Review of International Studies

Summary

Public diplomacy has been externally directed via a strategy of assertive reputation-building. In an era of insurgent populism, this model faces strong backlash, driven by the image of public diplomacy being disconnected from domestic publics. Under these conditions, an opportunistic set of ascendant political leaders — even those located at the international system’s core — have considerable incentive to diminish ‘their’ own diplomats as part of a wider campaign to stigmatize the traditional establishment. While more attention needs to be directed to the causes of this disconnection between diplomats and public, this article highlights a number of key ingredients in a menu of adaptation to the populist challenge. Above all, the focus of engagement in public diplomacy should be broadened to include domestic as well as foreign audiences. Disruption, it must be emphasized, does not mean the end of public diplomacy. Rather, public diplomacy must take a domestic turn.

In: The Hague Journal of Diplomacy

Summary

Public diplomacy has been externally directed via a strategy of assertive reputation- building. In an era of insurgent populism, this model faces strong backlash, driven by the image of public diplomacy being disconnected from domestic publics. Under these conditions, an opportunistic set of ascendant political leaders — even those located at the international system’s core — have considerable incentive to diminish ‘their’ own diplomats as part of a wider campaign to stigmatize the traditional establishment. While more attention needs to be directed to the causes of this disconnection between diplomats and public, this article highlights a number of key ingredients in a menu of adaptation to the populist challenge. Above all, the focus of engagement in public diplomacy should be broadened to include domestic as well as foreign audiences. Disruption, it must be emphasized, does not mean the end of public diplomacy. Rather, public diplomacy must take a domestic turn.

In: Debating Public Diplomacy