New actors in the field of diplomacy

Government agencies around the globe view information as not only an asset but also a national priority particularly this time of information age where information is considered as a commodity. For those government agencies involved in diplomacy, they are under pressure to rapidly gather, process and disseminate information, they are transforming their relationship with NGOs and non-state actors for the purpose of expanding their information capabilities and resources.Generally speaking non-state actors such as non-governmental organisation(NGOs), International government organizations(IGOs), the media and corporations have a prosperity to effectively deploy and utilize communication technology for innovative information exchange from geographical dispersed sites around the world indicating national governments increasing information dependencies on non-state actors.The impact of new government information partnership afford non-state actors with a more influential role in diplomacy process.
This shows how governments is changing state and non-state communicative dynamics and influences in the new era of diplomacy.

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy: the emergence of new actors

Diplomacy as we have seen throughout this module, has been changing and evolving. The evolution has been made from the traditional diplomacy to the new diplomacy practiced presently. The most important aspect of the new diplomacy is the emergence of new actors in the international system. Actors such as international organisations, NGOs and MNCs. The number of NGOs has risen from 176 in 1909 to 21,026 in 2006. (Leguey-Feilleux, pp 105: 2009) The number of NGOs has had an increase of more than 80% in less than a century. And with that increase in number, came an increase in power and influence.

Leguey-Feilleux states a brilliant example; this being the success in achieving the banning of landmines in December 1997. This was the result of the influence of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and the NGOs involved with them, which were more than 1200, on governments. (Ibid, pp 122-128: 2009) As stated by Leguey-Feilleux, ‘it was a remarkable achievement for civil society in the diplomatic process, an example of partnership with governmental institutions.’ (Ibid, pp 128: 2009) Governments have realised that it is in their interest and benefit to keep the NGOs on their side to avoid problems and public uprising. International organisations nowadays have a voice and a say, and help set the international agenda. Even if the issues raised are not dealt with immediately by the government, the international organisations at least manage to shed light on them. Depending on the support of the public and campaigning by the organisation, the issue in question might reach a point where the government will not be able to ignore it anymore and will address it.

Such an issue nowadays is that of climate change. NGOs have put it out in the open and spread the word. People are more and more involved in wanting governments to act in relation to it because it is something that affects everyone. Thus, climate change is on the agenda for quite a large number of countries nowadays. The 2009 Copenhagen Summit spurred a lot of manifestations and demonstrations across the world. In London alone, The Wave demonstration gathered around 20,000-40,000 people. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8396696.st

The role of new actors in the international system is one which is gaining greater strength. The government prefers to keep NGOs on their side as they can be of use to them when it comes to negotiations for example, as a country is more willing to talk to an NGO than to a government sometimes. Diplomacy has been evolving and will continue to do so, as globalisation has done until now.

Leguey-Feilleux (2009) ‘The Dynamics of Diplomacy’ London: Lynne RIenner Publishers

Most Important Aspect of the “New” Diplomacy

The most important aspect of the “new” diplomacy I consider the development in scale that diplomacy can be conducted, that is through multilateral or conference diplomacy.

The main difference between bilateral diplomacy and multilateral diplomacy is that bilateral diplomacy is conducted between two governments on a one-to-one basis, but multilateral diplomacy on the other hand is conducted on a more complex environment, where one government has to deal with several other governments and those other governments in their own turn have to deal with all the other governments, or more simply- “dealing with several governments simultaneously” (Walker, 2004, p-16) “within the organization, while seeking to fulfill the mission given to the organization by the states that created it.”(Leguey-Feilleux, 2009: 217). Though in purpose, both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy are similar in a sense that in both cases states mainly act in their own national interests- as in Multilateral diplomacy is seen as “Acting globally, to benefit locally”. (Walker, 2004, p21)

As for main characteristics of multilateral diplomacy are:

“Parliamentary” or “Diplomacy by parliamentary procedures” or “Open diplomacy”

(note the Press behind)

It is “Open” only on the surface though, because it is argued that genuine agreements and negotiations take place confidentially in a more complex environment, thereby this process is criticized as corruption of diplomacy.

Therefore, one of the most important aspects of multilateral diplomacy is the process through which decisions/agreements are reached, that is through “informal consultations”, that could take place outside of official meetings, during lunches and etc.

Also, during such multilateral or conference diplomacy, the formation of coalitions or blocs play an important role in decision making, where “intrabloc diplomacy” takes place.

As for the reasons why do I consider Multilateral Diplomacy as the main aspect of the “new” diplomacy, because even though similar to conference diplomacy took place during the Concert of Europe in the form of Congresses in 1815-1856, where delegates also met for discussions and negotiations, which constitutes that it is not so “new” after all, I still think that contemporary Multilateral Diplomacy is different, because it is more effective and multidimensional.

This is observable through some of the main purposes of Multilateral Diplomacy:

o Information gathering and pooling, as the process of “peer review”

o Joint projects, that are useful in achieving ones own objectives in the issues that need joint management.

o Management of the external environment, where for example agreements on opening the markets at the WTO (World Trade Organization) can benefit the trade environment in certain regions, or agreements reached on Chemical Weapons Convention can create a more secure environment.

o Influencing behavior, where “governments who wish to influence are within the sovereign control of other states”. (Walker,2004, p18)

o Entering into mutually beneficial contracts, where both states should end up with good deals.

o Domestic agenda salvation processes, where states “see the international scene primarily as an extension of the domestic” (Walker,2004, p19).

o Reactive character of states, where if one state brings up a topic, other state that is in concern has to follow suit (even if the state would rather to dismiss the topic) in order to ensure that its own interests are not damaged.

o Meetings take place in routine-annually or at regular intervals planned basis.

(Walker, 2004, pp:16-20)

Thus, as Walker argues: “Multilateral Diplomacy is not different in purpose from bilateral diplomacy; it is merely one of the implements in the toolkit available to governments for coping with issues as they arise” (Walker, 2004, p-21).

Bibliography:

Leguey-Feilleux, Jean-Robert, (2009), The Dynamics of Diplomacy , Lynne Rienner Publishers, London.

Walker, Ronald A.,(2004) Multilateral Conferences: Purposeful International Negotiation. Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations, Palgrave Macmillan.

Pictures available at:

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/8KQfXW-Q3ov/IMF+WB+2008+Fall+Meetings+Washington+DC

Most important aspects of the new diplomacy

Mulitilateral diplomacy usually includes bilateral diplomacy somehow within its own framework in how negotiations are carried out,the forming of blocs within individual interests can be seen to happen and to a certain extent undermine the multilateral aspect of diplomacy.

States need to consult individual embassies that they may have set abroad before actually raising important suggestions at these multilateral diplomatic conferences and hence the inclusion of bilateral diplomacy within the framework of multilateral diplomacy.

It is also important to note that the emergence of multilateral diplomacy is not only beyond the twentieth century but dates back to earlier examples from the persian world fourth centuries BC (watson,p85-8).Within the European system of states,somewhat chaotic multilateral conferences devoted to peace settlements were a feature of the 17th century(Berridge,p151).

However with the evolving nature of the international system mutliateral diplomacy has certainly evolved in its forms of inclusion and openess,whether it can be seen to bypass bilateral diplomacy is arguable, i argree more with the aspect that the two go hand in hand and it is almost impossible to completely override bilateral diplomacy.

After the cold war and events leading further on into the September 9/11 attacks on the United states of America the most important changes to diplomacy can be seen as the inclusion and openess of multilateral conferences.It is important to note that this does not mean multilateral diplomacy has been overtly successful as most important descisions and negotiations do happen bilaterally as with example of the UN security council.

The inclusion of NGOs within multilateral negotiations is also an important aspect within the new diplomacy although they may not have the same weight as other state actors they raise important awareness to certain issues due to their levels of expertise within a particular subject as with, the environment that state actors may overlook.

Frank

Less glamour- multitasking

In a technologically advanced world, states and citizens are becoming more integrated. Therefore, it could be argued that diplomacy is also affected by this process and it has lost its privileged status due to this integration. Bolewski argues that changes in the character of diplomacy are due to several factors such as “accelerating globalization, new participants in globalized world and internationalization of domestic politics."(Bolewsi 2007: 16). I would argue that one of the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is the fact that “diplomat no longer has a controlling monopoly in carrying out diplomatic tasks” (Roberts 2009: 20). Indeed, diplomacy can be conducted not only by state institutions but also by non-governmental organizations, activists, businessmen, artists or academics. If diplomacy is as Satow states “conduct of business between states by peaceful means” (Roberts 2009: 1) then these actors definitely help to build peaceful bridges and promote a good image of their state. Diplomats have to be more prepared when addressing their communication skills than before because establishing good relations and contacts with media can be sometimes as difficult as dealing with the foreign government. New diplomacy has to be more flexible as is the environment which surrounds it- global network society. As Riordan points out,
“ Economy, trade, finance, human rights, the environment and organized crime are all issues that we now have to deal with at the international level... this represents a major intrusion into the diplomatic word of domestic politics and political agendas” (Riordan 2003:3). To sum up, new diplomacy addresses more issues, it is conducted by a broader range of actors and it is constantly “in the spotlight”.

Wilfried Bolewski, Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations, (Berlin: Springer, 2007)
Sir Ivor Roberts (ed.), Satow’s Diplomatic Practice, 6th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)
Shaun Riordan, The New Diplomacy (Cambridge: Polity, 2003)

Aspects of New Diplomacy

The international political system, of the post cold war era created a process that breed a new form of diplomacy that challenges the conception of national sovereignty together with the structures of traditional diplomacy. Unlike traditional diplomacy, it needs to be emphasized that this new form of diplomacy emerged out, but not moulded from the development of a sovereign state, instead, it can be argued that the forces of globalisation induced new diplomatic structures that invaded the principles of a sovereign state to set the rules of its economical and political systems, to determine the behaviours of its own people, and the structures of its foreign policy. Although the old diplomatic structures are still withstanding in the new global political system – the strength of their role has been weakened by unconventional new diplomatic conduct of non-state actors to the point of the inquest of their relevancy in the modern international system.

New diplomacy of non-state actors (NGOs, Pressure groups, Multinational corporations) has bypassed the traditional state embassy and penetrated to the core areas of bilateral and multilateral negotiations between states on the range of international issues such as; cultural, environmental, trade, financial, security, humanitarian and human rights. Globalisation created a global nomadic lifestyle for international citizens in searching for; advanced knowledge, business opportunities, settlements, attractions and employment. The advancement in technology has allowed information to be transmitted faster to the international public making it insignificant for citizen to contact their embassies for information of a foreign country. Embassies are no longer the sole distributors of foreign information. For example, Google map technology - allows potential visitors to view the geographical location of the destination in another country. Diplomats of new diplomacy utilises this technology to create global network for interacting, campaigning, lobbying and negotiating about a range of international issues.

Diplomacy within the public eye

The international system is an essential part in looking at the extent to which globalisation anarchy and interdependence have lead sovereign states to communicate and relate with each other through public diplomacy.

Challenges that have faced the United States and mainly the west such as the Cold war and the September 9/11 attacks can be viewed as bringing a greater importance and transforming public diplomacy.

The war on terror that was lead by President George Bush during his time in office saw the invasions of Iraq and subsequently Afghanistan.The extents and consequences of these wars have seen questions arise not only in the eyes of the world but very importantly in the minds of people duelling in the countries involved.

Clarification is required through diplomacy towards these countries in order to bring about an understanding and bridge the negativity that may tarnish the images of these countries invading their territories.

The recent unexpected visit of Prince Charles to Iraq to enlighten the troops fighting in Basra was deemed as not welcome by the lay people of Basra due the occupation of British troops in their motherland.

Whether the visit was superficial and mainly for his own benefits as said by some of the locals,an important form of public diplomacy can be seen as he managed to meet with senior members of the community such as Basra's governor Abdull Latif and the Archbishop Gabriel Kassab of the Christian community.

The risk of Prince Charles being in Iraq was imminent hence the secrecy prior to his visit meeting with local community bridges some misunderstandings and may clear critics about his visit within the local community and uplift the general view of the local people to the troops in this area of Basra.

http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20040210074636257

Frank