My understanding of diplomacy today

As I have seen during the lectures and seminars, diplomacy has been changing throughout history. However, my understanding of diplomacy before starting this module was very limited to a few elements of what diplomacy is about, such as embassies, ambassadors, negotiations and visas. Moreover, as I wrote in my “first impressions” in the first lecture, I could understand, for the title of the module, that there were two types of diplomacy. What the title module says, new diplomacy, and what I could imagine, old diplomacy.

Nevertheless, during this course I have been able to acquire a better understanding of what diplomacy is and the differences of the new and the old diplomacies. And, even though with the names of new and old diplomacy we can imagine that they are completely opposed and different, today I can say that they “coexist peacefully” in the contemporary world politics. The old diplomacy has not disappeared, and the new diplomacy has taken lots of elements from the old one such as secrecy and bilateral negotiation, among many others. Furthermore, the old diplomacy is not as old as the name says, and the new diplomacy is not as new as the name says, as well.

Diplomacy today is more opened to new types of actors and new channels of communication which were completely unexpected twenty years ago. NGOs are playing an important role in the conduct of multilateral negotiations regarding environment, for example. International Organizations, at the same time, are more taken into account by governments and diplomats than twenty years ago. So, the nature of diplomacy as it was after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, has changed.

Moreover, the integration of technology in diplomacy has been a key element in the recent years. Besides, the possibilities of being in a negotiation through videoconference, and the limitations that it has, can have a profound impact in the near future. Nevertheless, diplomacy, nowadays, is facing new challenges at the same time. Wikileaks revealed confidential information between the US Department of State and its diplomats around the world. Thus, we do not know yet how it is going to affect diplomacy, if it is going to affect, but governments will probably try to keep their information safer from the newspapers.

Environmental Diplomacy and Non-state Actors

Since the mid-1980 the concern about the environment has been growing and diplomacy has played an important role in this issue. So, nowadays we can talk about environmental negotiations as a way to try to solve the problems caused by the humans/nations in the environment.

In environmental negotiations, states are not the only parties involved, non-state actors such as NGOs or International Organizations are also involved in the negotiations. Non-state actors are used as advisors by states, as representatives of poor countries and as sources of independent analysis of situations and problems. Moreover, due to the experience, legitimacy, independency and resources of non-state actors, they are also important setting the agenda and conducting debates.

However, even though non-state actors play an important role in environmental negotiations, states are still the only ones that can sign, accept and implement the agreements achieved in the negotiations. Therefore, the real power of non-state actors in this kind of negotiation is very limited. They can neither impose anything to any state, nor sanction states for not applying the agreements. They can only recommend and provide information and analysis.

During the environmental negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009, there were hundreds of NGOs accredited and they were very active trying to engage everyone to: 1) a huge reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and; 2) to a solution to the climate change. But, in the end, states were the only ones signing the agreement and the national interest of some states was before any solution to the problem.

Thus, can we talk about non-state actors as key players in environmental negotiations or is it just an illusion?

Carles Reina Tortosa

Different elements in the new diplomacy

Public diplomacy and multilateral diplomacy are key elements in the new diplomacy as well as the “paradiplomacy” of non-state actors. None of these three kinds of diplomacy is more important than any other. None of them has more impact in the international system than the others because they all have their own role to play in what is called diplomacy.

The introduction of non-state actors in the international system such as multinational corporations, NGOs, celebrities or international organizations, among many others, has helped weak states and minorities to be heard and taken into account in the international community. Moreover, non-state actors are, sometimes, more concerned about citizens, environment and improving quality of life rather than states’ national interests. A clear example of this is the recent announcement of some food companies such as Carrefour or Lidl which says that they will stop selling tuna in order to preserve the species.

Non-state actors have a huge impact in the international arena. They are used as intermediaries by many states as a way to keep relations with enemies or non-recognized governments. Besides, they are used as partners by international organizations since non-state actors can provide expertise, information and legitimacy. Thus, the “paradiplomacy” of non-state actors benefits the world by maintaining and promoting peace.

Public diplomacy also has its own and important role in diplomacy. It is used to build relations between different states and to react against bad press. Furthermore, public diplomacy helps in the modeling of state’s image in the world. States want to have a good image so that they can attract investments and tourism and export their culture, values and products around the globe. However, if public diplomacy is not used correctly, it can have deep effects in the way a country is seen by the others.

Multilateral diplomacy is essential for any state in the globalized world that we are currently living. International problems require international solutions and states by their own can no longer solve problems that affect different states at the same time. The eradication of species, for example, can only be solved by cooperation between states. So, throughout the years we have seen an increase of multilateral conferences and negotiations in order to solve problems and avoid conflicts.

Thus, as a conclusion, it is not possible to determine which one is more important since they all are interconnected, interdependent and have their own role in diplomacy.

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.