Most scholars agree that the “new” diplomacy has a number of key features which distinguish it from the classical form of diplomacy.
Most cite its openness and transparency in contrast to the secrecy of negotiations behind closed doors, the rise of new technologies enabling real-time communication around the world, the focus on multilateral conferences and international organizations as opposed to the bilateral agreements of the past and its inclusiveness compared to the highly elitist notion of “diplomats only”.
While all of these changes can have a major impact on the way diplomacy is conducted, it is the new concept of inclusiveness that challenges the very foundation of the Westphalian order: the primacy of sovereign states.
Brown takes it to the extreme in exclaiming “The era of sovereign states is dead”, referring to the states’ struggle to control the international economy, the financial system and the flow of information over the internet on their own. And to the rise of NGOs on the international diplomatic scene: Suddenly, states are no longer the only driving powers to bring issues on top of the diplomatic agenda.
Unsatisfied with the slow and lengthy processes of the “old” diplomacy, tired of protests which were being ignored and losing trust in the way states represent them, civil society, supporting NGOs in vast numbers, emerged at the head of a “new” diplomacy.
It is driven by the power of ideas, which are marketed in large campaigns, rather than by military or economic might and a resolute “take it or leave it” (Brown, p18) approach in negotiations, unwilling to compromise on content to suit the Great Powers; as well as working with compressed timeframes and 2/3 majorities rather than aiming for unanimity, a novelty in consensus-based International Law.
The Ottawa Process resulting in the Mine Ban Treaty of 1997 and the Statute of the International Criminal Court, crafted in Rome, 1998, are named by Kofi Annan as two of the great successes of this “new” diplomacy “under the impulse of the tireless work by NGOs” (Brown, p1).
This development has truly 
been extraordinary. NGOs have taken issues already on the international agenda, and moved them into a faster track (Davenport), by rallying the support of smaller, “like-minded” nations, which offered the necessary state leadership. By focusing on innovative methods and speed, NGOs provided the key leadership in lobbying for, advising on and drafting some of the language of two treaties which have been ratified by 156 states (Mine Ban Treaty) and 114 states (ICC). Achieving all this disregarding the usual diplomatic channels, without US support and generally detached from the state-centric past.
However, as revolutionary as this sounds, one should not forget, that NGOs alone did not create those treaties. They triggered interest, relentlessly lobbied for support and exerted strong pressure on the delegates to come to a decision fast. However, the votes on the treaties were still cast by nations, not by NGOs or “the civil society” and nations signed and ratified the treaties – or decided not to, for they were overwhelmed by the fast pace of the "new" diplomacy and could not achieve the desired amendments.
Still, I believe that the element of inclusiveness is the most important change to the nature of diplomacy, but it is not a momentum that will overturn the concept of state sovereignty.
Nation states will have to learn to cooperate with NGOs, in order to create a mutually supportive relationship: States will be able to profit from the ideological power of NGOs to lobby for issues on the agenda, can learn from the NGOs flexibility, as well as their expertise on a variety of matters; while NGOs which ultimately do lack legitimacy can become partners to nations rather than opponents, as the “new” diplomacy will develop further. Further, towards a willingness to lift issues from normal decision-making forums to the creation of new processes, which include states as well as non-state actors.
A video of the UN NGO Conference 2010 - They are here to stay
This is a very neatly presented and well argued account of the role of NGOs in diplomacy, which recognises both their strengths and limitations. Well done!
ReplyDeleteYour concluding point about the need for states to cooperate with NGOs is developed by Brian Hocking (see his chapter on 'catalytic diplomacy' in Melissen (ed.), Innovations in Diplomatic Practice, as well as his article with Andrew Cooper in Global Society).