Whilst the link between international diplomacy and the Olympic movement has been the subject of extensive academic and journalistic enquiry, the experience of diplomatic discourse relating to the relatively youthful Paralympic movement has received little attention. It occurs not just in the context of state diplomacy, where for example the Paralympic Games may provide a conduit for the pursuit of specific policy objectives, but also in relation to the engagement of the International Paralympic Committee [IPC] as an evolving non-state actor in the diplomatic process. The idea of the IPC as an advocacy body engaged through public diplomacy in promoting disability rights needs exploration as an element of the contemporary politics of disability. This analysis considers the relationship between the activities of the IPC and wider lobbying by disabled people’s organisations as a means of leveraging change in domestic and international policy toward disability. In relation to the global development agenda, it also assesses IPC responses to the gulf in resourcing for para-sport as well as related health and education provision between high- and low-resource regions. It considers the response of the organisation from the perspective of public diplomacy and locates that response within the wider diplomacy of development.
A Princeton PhD, was a US diplomat for over 20 years, mostly in Eastern Europe, and was promoted to the Senior Foreign Service in 1997. For the Open World Leadership Center, he speaks with
its delegates from Europe/Eurasia on the topic, "E Pluribus Unum? What Keeps the United States United." Affiliated with Georgetown University for over ten years, he shares ideas with students about public diplomacy.
The papers of his deceased father -- poet and diplomat John L. Brown -- are stored at Georgetown University Special Collections at the Lauinger Library. They are manuscript materials valuable to scholars interested in post-WWII U.S.-European cultural relations.
This blog is dedicated to him, Dr. John L. Brown, a remarkable linguist/humanist who wrote in the Foreign Service Journal (1964) -- years before "soft power" was ever coined -- that "The CAO [Cultural Affairs Officer] soon comes to realize that his job is really a form of love-making and that making love is never really successful unless both partners are participating."