Sunday, 28 November 2010

New Diplomacy

The most important aspect of the New Diplomacy

It is recognised that the nature and dynamics of diplomacy has changed immensely since the ending of the cold war and the rise of globalisation. In agreement with Leguey-Feilleux comments, the traditional diplomatic agenda of military security, ideology and territorial rivalry has broadened and now includes a wide range of issues, such as, problems of the environment; depletion of energy resources, concerns of pandemics, the rise of international crime and terrorism and improving human rights across the world (Leguey-Feilleux, J-R., The Dynamics of Diplomacy, 2009, p 60-61). And it is internationally accepted that no one state has the resources to single-handily solve any or all of these problems. In the past, states have been dismissive and slow to react towards many of these ‘new’ problems and it could be argued that, if it wasn’t for external civil intervention many of these issues would not be on the ‘new’ diplomatic agenda.

It is therefore believed that the most significant changes to the practice of diplomacy have been the achievements and influence of non-state actors, in particular non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

NGOs have used their expertise and resources to raise public awareness on issues that governments either do not want to discuss or are slow to recognise as problem areas. NGOs have also made great use of the information communication technology systems and the media in promoting issues and their interests, mobilising public support and established international networks.

In recent years NGOs have successfully set the international agenda and lobbied governments on issues such as human rights, the environment, gender equality, child labour and child soldiers, trade and development and the campaigned to ban landmines and a host of other issues.

Their 1990s confrontational image and reproach towards states, government and multinational corporations have been transformed. Many NGOs now hold formal advisory roles within the international community and within many postmodern states. For example, the NGO Working Group on the United Nations Security Council meets regularly, with senior council ambassadors, to discuss humanitarian relief, disarmament, global governance and development.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/major-ngo-campaigns/ngo-working-group-on-the-security-council-4-24.html

‘When crises seem to lie beyond the control of governments or the
relevant intergovernmental organisations, “non-state” actors come
to play significant roles. They appear in the familiar guises of non-governmental
organisations, corporations, and intergovernmental organisations and
they promise levels of efficiency and responsiveness that transcend the
constraints of the state’
(Langhorne R, The Diplomacy of Non-State Actors, Diplomacy and Statecraft, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2005).

Highly influential and internationally recognised NGOs have provided guidance on how best to present and implement sensitive policies. And as such they are increasingly emerging as consultative partners within international diplomacy. It is believed that NGOs are increasingly participating in mediation and conflict resolution because they are seen as being more credible and trustworthy than most governments and official diplomats and as a result they are generally able to achieve greater progress and agreement between warring parties and on controversial issues. Recent examples of joint NGOs and international efforts are the Kimberley Process diamond certification scheme, the establishment of the International Criminal Court and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.

Despite their influences, successes, advisory and mediation roles it remains that NGOs do not have diplomatic rights, privileges or immunities, and state officials remain responsible for international and diplomatic affairs. That said, NGOs have undoubtedly contributed towards opening up the diplomatic agenda and their efforts in my opinion is the most important aspect of the New Diplomacy.

1 comment:

  1. It is, indeed, interesting to explore the many ways in which non-state actors influence the international political agenda as you mention. I also believe that the relations between the different groups despite their geographical location have improved due to enhanced means of communication in the sense that local experiences become global issues to be pushed onto the global agenda. It seems interesting to imagine which challenges would have been ignored- simply due to unawareness- if non-state actors had not existed.
    However, the problem does occur, as you mention at the end, that their diplomatic rights are certainly limited. State sovereignty and its sacrosanct rights constitute a major obstacle for non-state actor to obtain genuine diplomatic status which, unfortunately, will be difficult to change. Nevertheless, the simple fact that their presence at conferences, meetings etc is recognised contributes to the hope that it will continue to increase as they gain more experience within the diplomatic field.

    ReplyDelete