The End of an Era?

What do you consider to be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy?

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

21st century: the era of new diplomacy?

Diplomacy. We often use this term under various circumstances and in different situations. But when we start thinking, it is not so easy to define what diplomacy exactly is - especially in its practical sense. We read in ‘A dictionary of diplomacy’ that: ‘diplomacy is the conduct of relations between sovereign states through the medium of officials based at home or abroad, the latter being members or states’ but it could be also ‘diplomatic missions to foreign states’ or ‘communications system of international society’ (Berridge G. R. James A. 2003 p. 69-70). Perhaps ‘diplomacy’ contains all of them and even more. However, the question now arising is: when and how did it actually start? Is diplomacy still the same as hundreds of years ago?

As I see it the most visible change in diplomacy is that rather than typical bilateral treaties states prefer multilateral conferences. Therefore they even created platforms to do it. Those are international organisations such as European Union or United Nations with all of their associations. The international conferences create good opportunity to discuss many important issues. Additionally those issues are more and more often not as significant as for instance a hundred years ago. They are concerned for example with trade, health care, human rights, people’s safety or environment. Moreover they claim that universal values are the most important issue nowadays. Loads of conferences about world peace or human rights have been taking place.

Additionally, other actors arrived to the scene: NGOs and international companies. The position of NGOs on the foreign policy scene has already moved from episode to supporting actor. A good example is Ottawa Convention of 1997 about banning antipersonnel mines which was created because of the pressure from International Campaign to Ban Landmines (Brown, B. 2001, ‘What is the New Diplomacy?’ in American Foreign Policy Interests, Vol. 23, p. 3-4). The Organisation was formed to achieve this task and succeeded. Thousands of NGOs were involved. The Mine Treaty was such a big and valuable success that the Campaign and their founder (Jody Williams) received a Nobel Peace Prize in 1997.

At present times the difference between contemporary and traditional diplomacy can be easily detected. First of all, diplomacy in traditional terms was mostly concerned with political and military issues. It was bilateral and nearly all of the discussions between diplomats were secret. To show how it all worked we could mention Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. It was secret arrangement signed by foreign ministers of Third Reich and Soviet Union that included detailed division of Central Europe between those two countries before Second World War (Biskupski M. Wandycz P. 2003 p.147). Only they knew about it. Nowadays it is unthinkable that two countries could just share third one between them without any notice.

In conclusion, modern diplomacy is more flexible than traditional one. It tends to adapt to the new world order.

However, whether the ‘New Diplomacy’ works and to what extend is debatable. The world became multipolar and the academics have the right to hesitate over the higher moral aim of diplomacy as opposed to the individual states’ interests.