A Case Study of Ivory Trade Ban

Non-state actors are significant in both spheres, trade and environmental diplomacy. In case of trade, two types of non-state actors are of utter importance, namely trans-national corporations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The first ones today often conduct their own diplomacy in order to advance their economic goals and no longer rely on diplomatic services provided by governments. The latter, NGOs usually have a somewhat contrary role and their diplomacy aims to ban trade in areas that harm local livelihoods, fauna or environment in general. Often state diplomacy and states themselves can be seen as “obstacles to change, not proponents of change” (Princen and Finger, 1994: 31) aiming to maintain order and stability. Thus, even if trade often leads to increasing environmental and other severe threats, governments as “defenders of the status quo” are not the likely actors involved in reducing those threats. (Ibid.)

A further problem of the traditional diplomatic ways of handling matters is “the nature of the actors themselves”. Diplomacy has been conducted for a long time “by an elite corps of diplomats”, which today have been complemented by political leaders and other bureaucrats. (Ibid.) Their work still remains vital, but diplomacy has become much more complex and new issues have risen to the agenda and even trade negotiations, a part of traditional diplomacy have become complex with the increasing powers of the companies themselves and the growing participation of other non-state actors aiming to interrupt for reasons of their own. Today professional diplomatic actors “trained in international law, diplomatic protocol, the art of negotiations…interstate relations, and…maintaining the status quo” find it increasingly difficult to handle all the new issues alone. (Ibid.)

The case of ivory trade is an eminent example of a case where trade that is beneficiary to many also produce irreversible harm to others, which makes it hard to reach any agreements by state negotiations alone. Trade in ivory has a long history, but this has meant that where as 500 years ago there might have been up to 10 million elephants in Africa but in 1979 only about 1.3 million, with 625 000 left in 1989 according to estimates. (Ibid. 121) Obviously, ivory trade was not the only reason also droughts, hunting, loss of habitat to humans and natural deaths were partly responsible for the decline. However, the most significant immediate cause of death has been poaching encouraged by the increasing demand and price for ivory after the World Wars. In Hong Kong, Europe and Japan the price of raw ivory rose from approximately $3-10 a pound in the 1960s to $200 a pound in the 1980s. Around the same time the ability to mass produce ivory carvings improved leading to ever increasing elephant killing and according to some estimates 200-300 elephants were killed by poachers daily. (Ibid. 122)

The response began with Ghana listing African elephants on appendix III of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 1976. Elephants were uplisted to appendix II in 1978 and in 1985 the parties to CITES established the first export quotas and trade control systems.(Ibid.125) CITES, the intergovernmental institution could do but little to handle the wider elephant problem, there was need for non-state actors to get involved. Until this NGOs had mainly documented the decline and lobbied for a ban, but had mainly been ignored by CITES and its member states. However, in the 1980s NGOs managed to get a voice hard to ignore. After impressive lobbying and negotiation the United States African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 was passed, forms of public diplomacy were used to heighten the public concerns for the elephants.

In 1989 the appendix I was finally agreed on with an international ban. (Ibid.127) In achieving the ban it was necessary to influence consumer behaviour in order to stop the trade, this could not have been done by states and their organizations because after all "states pursue economic growth through the promotion of production, consumption, and trade” and thus, international NGOs have stepped in to fill the “diplomatic niche”. (Ibid.134) These NGOs have the knowledge and can operate over state boundaries and have had huge impact in pushing the one hundred plus CITES member countries towards the ban agreement, which might not have been possible through traditional diplomatic routes. (Ibid.135-6)

In relation to CITES itself, CITES secretariat seems to turn to international NGOs in numerous cases as they “hold a peculiar advantage” as they are not bound by state boundaries and can conduct diplomacy that does not need to be nice or fawn anyone and governments can only retain good diplomatic relations through compromises. (Ibid. 142)

In general the importance of NGOs in both environmental and trade negotiations is the “influence achieved by building expertise in areas diplomats tend to ignore and by revealing information economic interests tend to withhold”. (Ibid. 41) Thus, it is important to remember that “[b]ad policies do not remain in effect simply because an absence of good ideas but also because powerful forces block the adaptation of those ideas” and non-state actors often are the most powerful counterforce of these enhancing the possibility to adapt some new ideas. (Ibid. 37)

Sources:

Princen, T. and Finger, M. (1994) Environmental NGOs in World Politics: linking the local and the global. London: Routledge

Addressing Global Warming

With the rise of the economic globalisation of powerful states, many find the significant process of ecological globalisation pushed to the limits from environmentalists in contemporary time. Both economy and environment is important for every state and individual, thus it is difficult to negotiate sufficient results in regards to reduce environmental issues because of the negative economic effects it would have had as a consequence.
Leaders of states are well aware of the dimension of environmental issues, thus, they pretend to be blind.



Al Gore, former vice president in the Clinton Administration, is a supporter of environment awareness, author, multiple award winner, business man and a member of a nongovernmental organisation. He is present in talks and negotiation. Al Gore's former position in the White House enabled him to build a good network with powerful people; his concerns are being heard and considered in Climate Change talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, Kyoto Global Warming conference, in the Congress and many more other meetings.
In his lifetime, he was very active in chairing and negotiating agreements; he accomplished many things in regards to climate change. He, for instance, chaired the congressional delegations on Global Warming in the US whereby 40 nations agreed to cut Greenhouse gas emission, he was a member of many who drafted the limitation of Greenhouse and Carbon dioxide release in the Kyoto Global Warming Conference for 150 nations and many more other things.
He once said

“For a long time, the scientists have been telling us global warming increases the temperature of the top layer in the ocean, and that causes the average hurricane to become a lot stronger. So, the fact that the ocean temperatures did go up because of global warming, because of man-made global warming, starting around in the seventies and then we had a string of unusually strong hurricanes outside the boundaries of this multi-decadal cycle that is a real factor; there are scientists who point that out, and they're right, but we're exceeding those boundaries now.”

It is very important, for every individual and for every state, to participate and take action against the damage of the environment. I think Al Gore is doing a good job in using his power to reach out to people and make them aware,educate them with public talks, documentaries, books and many other ways.


http://algoresupportcenter.com/accomplishments4.html
http://www.algore.com/
http://www.polisci.colostate.edu/fac/mb/NGO%20Influence.pdf

NGOs: Filling the Void

Power has slowly seeping from the Nation state. Embroiled in multilateral treaties, particularly since the Second World War, with the initiation of the Bretton Woods Agreement, GATT, NAFTA, ASEAN, the European Union, WTO, WHO, etc. all of which has eroded the nation state’s sovereign ability to act unilaterally. In parallel with this trend, we see the rise of the Multinational Corporation. It is generally accepted that these corporations are beholden only to their shareholders and, ultimately, to profit margins. By their very essence of being Multinational, who now regulates and monitors them? Many have annual turnovers in the multi billion range, giving them more economic leverage and, through the lobbying system, more diplomatic influence than many nations.

“The result of that has been the emergence of a wide range of

human activities which owe little or nothing to geographical location, time

of day and, most important of all, to government permission or regulation.” (1)

Even those companies, ostensibly still beholden to a nation state, such as BAE Systems, Britain’s largest arms manufacturer, can exert enough influence over the government to have a recent criminal investigation into corruption and bribery halted in its tracks. No lies were told to the public, no one pretended the charges were false; the investigation was simply not allowed to continue because the government deemed it so. If governments no longer have authority over these companies, it can be left to NGOs to set the moral agenda.

Jody Williams, the co-ordinator of the International Campaign to Ban

Landmines, wins the 1997 Nobel prize for Peace. In a subsequent interview

she announces that not only had: “We won the Nobel prize [but] we changed

the way diplomacy is done”. (2)

Greenpeace has become very active in fighting against the unaccountable multinationals with recent campaigns “ranging from the effort to stop the forestry “clear-cutting” in Canada, the scaling of the BP offshore rig the Brent Spar in the North Sea, and the boycott of Shell because of the execution of the imprisoned Ken Saro-Wiwa and the “Ogani Nine” in Nigeria, caught Western governments in the

crossére.” (3)

While there is an unfortunate time lag, NGOs seem to be stepping into the void, taking the Multinationals to task and replacing the dated concept of government reproach with the force of public opinion, seizing their authority from a “vacuum of responsibility”. (4) Save the Children, Amnesty International and Medecin Sans Frontiers, are all expanding their offices and diplomatic efforts at the UN, The director for Greenpeace UK said,

“It’s a completely natural evolution. It’s not enough simply to say there’s something happening to the environment. You now have to say what needs to be done to solve the problem”. (5)

(1) Langhorne, R Diplomacy of Non-State Actors, Diplomacy and

Statecraft, vol. 16, (2005) pp 332

(2) Hocking,B. & Governments, NGOs & the Recalibration

Cooper, A. F. of Diplomacy, Global Society, vol. 14, no. 3

(2000) pp 365

(3) Ibib.

(4) Ibid. pp 368

(5) Bandler, J. Boston Globe, (7th June 1998) in: Hocking &

Cooper, Governments, NGOs & the

Recalibration of Diplomacy, , Global Society,

vol. 14, no. 3 (2000) pp 365

The New Diplomacy

When a person just hears the word ‘diplomat’, he thinks of representatives of countries looking all serious and intelligent, holding giant folders containing vital documents of their own countries and sitting at a round table and discussing the economical and political future of their own countries held at hushed places around the world behind closed doors. This was how old diplomacy worked. The new diplomacy has been more inclusive and open. Earlier, NGOs and the media haven’t had a lot of representation in the diplomatic processes. Nowadays, there is a lot more involvement of NGOs in diplomatic processes. Even if they don’t always get a say in the negotiation processes, they can at least help to stir the negotiations in the direction that would benefit the public, if not the state. Moreover, the involvement of the mass media has also helped diplomacy to me more open in nature and it has helped to include the people as well, thus making it more democratic. The Internet also plays a major role in diplomacy. Since the Internet reaches every nook and corner of the world, it is possible to get every person’s opinion regarding a particular issue.

However, recent developments might have taken this “new diplomacy” a step too far. WikiLeaks, an Internet platform responsible for the leaking of sensitive documents and reveling the unethical conduct of governments, began releasing 250,000 classified United States embassy cables from the 28^th of November 2010. “These documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight in to US government foreign activities.” (Wikileaks). This catapulted the US in to a worldwide diplomatic crisis.

The Guardian is one of the leading newspapers that have already released some information. One key secret that has been leaked is that Arab leaders are privately urging an air strike on Iran and that US officials have been instructed to spy on the UN leadership. This is the most sensational piece of leaked information that will definitely cause uproar internationally. The rest of the leaked cables disclose details of Washington’s grave fear over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program due to the rising instability in the country, the inappropriate remarks by Prince Andrew about a UK law enforcement agency and a foreign country, suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government, with one cable that alleges that vice-president Zia Massoud was carrying $52 million in cash when he was stopped during a visit to the UAE, and devastating criticism of the UK’s military operations in Afghanistan by US commanders. (The Guardian)

Despite of containing all the sensitive issues in world politics as well as the US military strategies to react to an imminent threat, the cables provide insulting descriptions of other leaders. Putin is described as an “alpha-dog”, Karzai is described as being “driven by paranoia”, and Angela Merkel allegedly “avoids risks and is rarely creative”. Furthermore, the cables name Saudi donors as the biggest financiers of terror groups, and provide a detailed account of an agreement between Washington and Yemen to cover up the use of US planes to bomb al-Qaida targets.

The cables also show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in “client states”; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations’ and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them.

After these cables were released and published, Washington had a field day to get in touch with the leaders of the countries mentioned in the cables. The White House also released a statement condemning their release: “Such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the US for assistance in promoting democracy and open government. By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and works of these individuals.” (The Guardian)

Thus, we can see that the inclusiveness of diplomacy is a highly questionable and debatable topic. Every diplomat from every country will act and behave differently with diplomats from other countries. It is important to understand that if diplomats cannot act freely without the fear of scrutiny by the media, it is going to be difficult for them to do their jobs, thus resulting in halting relations with other countries. Always including the public and the media in diplomacy may not necessarily be a good thing. It is important for certain aspects of diplomacy to remain secret. This secrecy at times can also help cover any unethical doings of countries away from the media glare and this could cement the relations between the two countries. However, secret diplomacy has its pros and cons as well. It is important that the diplomats try and understand when they feel it right to include the media and public and when they should hold secret talks. Therefore, to avoid any diplomatic crisis, I feel it is important that diplomats should talk freely with one another so as to understand the point of view of each and every person.

The uprising power of Non Governmental Organisations

According to the Worls Banks description of Non Governmental Organisations (NGO), they try to pressure policy outcomes in the name of the poor, environment and basic social services.
NGO's are non profit organisations who work independently from governments and they exist in a variety of categories.






NGO's are becoming more powerful in changing policies and promoting for what they are standing for which is Human rights for all and other fundamental rights for Human around the globe. They are, especially with the help of the media, becoming more and more powerful.
Amnesty International for instance finds itself more often lobbying in the international stage promoting Human rights and campaigning for International criminal court and UN Torture treaty. It has 2.8 million supporters around the globe, so NGO'S are, indeed, becoming an important instrument in new diplomacy.
Some would argue that the balance of power is shifting and therefore the sovereignty of states are challenged. The excecutive director of NGO Monitor said that the annualy published Human Rights report is a very important and reliable information source for journalists, diplomats, political activist, policy advicers and citizens around the globe as many of the claims were provided by eyewitnesses and victims.
Critics would say that those informations provided by eyewitnesses might be just a chance to revolt against their opressive countries, nevertheleness it is a significant source of information for politicians.
Enviromental NGO's participate in different ways. They, for instance, receive documents, propose and advice diplomats which in turn could have an effect on their decisions. They were highly successful in the support of protecting the ozone layer and other climate change issues.


Norwegian NGO's were part of the Copenhagen summit in 1995. The New York Times editor Alejandro stated that the uprising participaion of NGO's is like a second superpower.
In my opinion NGO's are the most important factors in new diplomacy, as their voices are being heard by influence people e.g the World Bank which interacts with NGO's who have projects in developing countries and who lobby policy decisions to promote or advocate outcomes.

Non-state actors.. Their/Our role in diplomacy

As we discussed during the previous weeks, many changes occurred within diplomacy. Diplomacy suffered a radical change particularly in the 20^th century from multilateral negotiations, open discussions, increasing presence of non-state actors until the enhanced importance of public diplomacy. Although it has occurred many changes in diplomacy, I believe non-state actors are the most important achievement of modern diplomacy. The social, historical and technological developments of the past century allowed the formation and improved importance of non-state actors. Moreover, during the lecture related to these actors it was distinguished six non-state actors: religious actors, sub-state units and international organizations, terrorist/rebel groups, multinational corporations, non-governmental organisations and individuals. Despite of the presence of many non-state actors in diplomacy I consider the last three more relevant in its radical change. Therefore, the last three will be developed throughout the blog entry. Furthermore, these actors are crucial to raise awareness regarding critical issues involving society. For that reason they gain credibility and support from the public which confers them power against governments.

Multinational corporations’ importance within politics has been increasing due to their expansion across the world. Consequently, nowadays some of these corporations have more resources than some states. Nevertheless, these corporations lobby governments influencing them on their policies. This influence can be used for their own self-interest (which frequently it is) but also for good causes. Also, business can have an important role to avoid international conflict, since usually countries that trade with each other do not resort to war. In a speech given by a representative of the German business community in a UN Security Council meeting he stated business in partnership with public partners has a critical role in battling violence, anarchy and terrorism all in favour of civilization, freedom and prosperity. (2007:53). This is a positive change of mindset in multinationals. Recently, there has been a rising cooperation between NGO’s and MNC’s to standardise corporations’ policies, their intention is to avoid lawsuits or other consequences that could harm the companies’ reputation. A few years ago in a lecture the Attorney Owen Pell gave an example regarding the new alliance between NGO’s and MNC’s:

“In the case of the Cocoa Harvesting Accord, NGOs united companies representing 99 percent of cocoa buyers to form a cartel to negotiate child labor practices. The MNCs agreed to buy cocoa only from areas with minimal use of child labor, as determined by a survey of local labor markets funded by the MNCs. Ultimately, around 20 African states agreed to participate in the program.”

For the previous, reasons I believe it is important to mention MNC’s role in diplomacy not only for their negative actions (as usually they are) but also for their recent positive contributions in world affairs.

Furthermore, non-governmental organisations are one of the most important non-state actors in world politics. They are usually specialized in different issues such as human rights, environmental issues, and so on. Usually these organisations have some advantage over states since they have credibility, expertise in specific issues, resources and representation in many places. Their importance has been rising in the last century, especially because globalization allows them to reach people faster. Therefore they can easily persuade public opinion and important issues related to civil society. Due to the increased importance of these organisations they are now accepted by states to provide information about specific issues of their expertise. Some even argue they are absolutely crucial to help states in particular issues such as environmental problems (2007:55).

Nevertheless, individuals are also very important non-state actors. There are two types of individuals involved in diplomacy: the common citizen or celebrities. Celebrities are a new trend within diplomacy. They use their influence to support causes and influence governments. Usually politicians like to be photographed with them to improve their image and also for public diplomacy. For example, George Clooney had the honour to address the UN Security Council regarding the genocide occurring in Darfur. It is rarely given access for common citizen to approach the supreme body of UN but an actor has a status and connections which allows him to do it. Nonetheless, organizations use these people to be “the face” of their causes raising people awareness of different issues. Therefore, celebrities often represent organizations and raise supporters for their causes. Furthermore, celebrities are important in shaping diplomacy but nevertheless non-famous citizens have the power to change diplomacy. Although sometimes people’s demonstrations have no influence in changing policies made by the government (the demonstrations against the Iraq War around the world are a good example), there are some crucial individuals that were successful in fighting for their causes. These people made themselves heard around the world due to their persistency and some examples are Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. These people were common John Does who became known for their actions and values. Therefore, despite of the importance of celebrities as non-state actors, common citizens can also fight for their causes and principles.

In conclusion, there were many changes within diplomacy. However, I believe the emergence of some non-state actors was the most important change since it raised awareness of issues that we would not be aware otherwise. This encourages us to practise an active role as citizens within world affairs.

With effort from these non-state actors the world is gradually changing...

I found this video online and decided to share with you. Great example.

.

The Earth Summit - 1992 - Brazil

This link provides a webpage where you can listen to George Clooney’s speech addressed to the UN Security Council.

Reference

Bolewski, W. (2007) Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations

New York : Springer

Others: some parts where referenced with links to its webpages.

NGO Diplomacy

In the past diplomacy was mainly concerned with matters of war and peace (‘high politics’) and it was carried out by expert members of the foreign service. Today it seems that there is no aspect of life that has not been on the diplomatic agenda (‘high’ and ‘low’ politics) and diplomacy itself is carried out by a variety of people, many of whom are not foreign service officers. (Leguey-Feilleux, 2009: 2) Where as, traditionally diplomatic negotiations have been carried out by only a few parties in utter secrecy, today there is a new sense of openness and inclusiveness both in the number and variety of parties and issues. This seems to be one of the most important and interesting aspects of the ‘new’ diplomacy.

As Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux points out, many of the ‘contemporary participants in diplomacy are not even “agents” or “intermediaries” in the traditional diplomatic sense of carrying out orders and implementing policy’. These new “agents” include representatives of international organizations, multinational corporations (MNCs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). (Ibid. 3-5) Especially NGOs have a significant importance in new diplomacy as they do not represent individual states, or greedy corporations, and can be seen as a reliable partner in negotiations.

One reason for states to engage in diplomatic negotiations with a growing number of NGOs is the new interdependence, which has been caused by the proliferation of problems that no single nation can solve unilaterally. It must be noted that the new agents themselves have also been pressing governments to address these problems. (Ibid. 57-61) The new complex interdependence is eroding the freedom of action of sovereign states, it increases the complexity of diplomacy and diversifies the ways to carry it out. One of the strengths of NGO diplomacy is their ability to either rally public support or opposition together with their skills in creating coalitions and using modern technology for networking. (Ibid. 72, 101-6)

The classic example of the importance of NGO diplomacy and its strengths is the campaign to ban landmines, where NGO representatives played a central role from the setting of the agenda until the actual ratification process. Patrick Leahy, US senator even stated that ‘never before have representatives of civil society collaborated with governments so closely, and so effectively, to produce a treaty to outlaw a weapon’. (Ibid. 107) Considering how significant landmines have been for the defensive warfare of numerous states this ban was a huge leap forward and and a massive victory for NGO diplomacy.

NGOs have also actively used all the possible diplomatic means to mediate in conflict situations and bring peace if possible. Even though states have the advantage of offering guarantees and inducements beyond the means of NGOs, it might be easier for the conflicting parties to trust an NGO which is less likely trying to gain some personal advantages, and NGOs can even engage in negotiations with outlawed groups, where as states might be put of because of fears of giving these groups a degree of legitimacy. (Ibid. 111-2)

The opening up of diplomacy to include other agencies, especially NGOs (as MNCs are mainly interested in profit making they cannot be compared with the previous) might be a way towards a more democratic international sphere, as civil society is included as Leguey-Feilleux notes. (Ibid. 113) But there is also a question of their legitimacy because unlike states they represent hazy entities and it is often hard to measure whether they even represent those who they claim to represent. They are not legally bound to act in any sort of ‘public interest’! (Collingwood and Logister, 2005)

Sources:

Collingwood, V. and Logister, L. 'State of the Art: Addressing the INGO Legitimacy Deficit' in Political Studies Review: 2005 VOL 3

Leguey-Feilleux, J. 2009. The Dynamics of Diplomacy. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc

The Importance of Non-Governmental Organisations in The New Diplomacy

The number of Non-Governmental Organisations which are operating internationally is estimated at 40.000.
(http://www.hmceurope.org/.)

The new diplomacy: Following your readings for, and the discussions in, seminars 5 to 7, what in your opinion is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy? Explain your reasons.

When the Iron Curtain fell in 1989, the historic event would soon prove to mark the beginning of an era of strive towards democratization throughout the world as well as a certain rise of civil society. In this way, the number of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) rose significantly following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, which, one may argue, since has changed the procedures of diplomacy significantly (Betsill and Corell, 2008, viii.)
With people obtaining an increased awareness of their surrounding world, many soon turned to NGOs for the trustworthiness which they may have felt that their respective governments lacked (Betsill and Corell, 2008, viii.)
This development forced governments to consider the evolving role of these new, increasingly powerful, actors on the international political scene, a fact which became evident as only 250 NGOs were involved in the The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, taking place in Stockholm in 1972, but an astonishing 3200 took part, on a variety of levels, in The World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 (Betsill and Corell, 2008, viii.)
One may put forth the argument that the reason that NGOs have obtained such credibility, and subsequent responsibility, among people throughout the world, is the way in which they indeed are capable of using soft power efficiently. They positively demonstrate the work which they perform through a whole variety of channels, and they gain citizens’ trust as they prove themselves as experts in their respective fields of work (http://www.interaction.org.)
It is my argument and belief that people, who physically are in a certain situation, know the origins, the course and the potential effects of that situation, and hereby must be considered irreplaceable and essential in diplomatic negotiations towards decision-making and problem-solving of that specific circumstance.
In this way, the American Director of Public Diplomacy for the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs, Bruce Wharton, proclaimed earlier this year:

“NGOs provide an incredible voice and reach beyond traditional audiences by recognizing that not one side fits all. All public diplomacy is local. People on the ground know best.”
(http://www.interaction.org.)

NGOs may not possess direct political power but the pressure which they, strongly backed by citizens, indeed are capable of putting on governments, is arguably so efficient that it can change policies and behaviours of government officials (Betsill and Corell, 2008, xi.) With this, it is arguable that the empowerment of NGOs can be considered one of the most important aspects of The New Diplomacy and that they indeed can, and should, be regarded as legitimate diplomats as they undoubtedly have a significant impact on international diplomatic relations.

Betsill, M. M., Corell, E. ed. (2008), NGO Diplomacy – The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations, MIT Press, Massachusetts.

America's Ambassadors? The NGO Role in Public Diplomacy Discussed at InterAction's 2010 Forum (2010), InterAction, A United Voice for Global Change
http://www.interaction.org/article/interaction-forum-2010-recap-americas-ambassadors-ngo-role-public-diplomay

Non-Governmental Organisations, Harvard Model Congress Europe, Date Unknown
http://www.hmceurope.org/2010/program_info/ngo.aspx

How the Chilean (and One Bolivian) Miners Changed Politics, Diplomatic Relations and a Nation's Image

Chilean President Pinera holding up the note stating that all 33 Miners were alive and well

Chilean President Pinera and Bolivian President Morales showing unity during the crisis

Public diplomacy: Write about a recent event or development which illustrates the importance or otherwise of public diplomacy in contemporary world politics. Provide links to relevant websites and news stories.

When the ramp leading into the San Jose mine, located near Copiapó in Chile, collapsed, leaving 33 miners, 32 Chilean and 1 Bolivian, trapped in a small shelter within the mine, no one could have anticipated the impact the accident would prove to have on politics, diplomatic relations and a nation’s image both nationally and internationally.
The whole world, common populations as well as political and religious leaders, followed closely as a whole variety of states and organisations worked together to reach, and finally after 69 long days, free the miners (www.cnn.com.)
The euphoria which came with the extraordinary rescue effort, leaving all the miners unharmed, promised a new beginning for Chile, as stated by President Sebastian Pinera:

”…The country is not the same after this.”
(www.bbc.co.uk.)

Prior to the San Jose mining accident, one may argue that Chile had quite a tarnished and one-sided reputation, that of President Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship, which the country had found difficulty escaping (www.nytimes.com.)
President Pinochet oppressed Chile throughout his presidency, which lasted nearly two decades and finally ended in 1990. He was accused of numerous human right offenses, including murdering and torturing his opponents, and arguably destroyed Chile’s image throughout the world (www.nytimes.com.)
Chile slowly but surely moved away from the legacy of the repressive regime, but one may put forth the argument that the two months the miners were trapped and the eyes of the whole world were on Chile, positively changed the image of the country more than the efforts of the past twenty years had managed to do. Through very effective public diplomacy and the immense press coverage of the miraculous rescue, both the President, the First Lady and 1500 journalists were indeed present as the miners re-emerged one by one; President Pinera managed to completely transform the way in which the world may previously have perceived his nation. Instead of human right abuses, Chile now became known and renowned for valuing the lives of its population higher than anything. The country proved to the international community that it is now a modern, technologically advanced and all-embracing nation. Chile was unified and successfully portrayed itself as a state worthy of the recognition and respect it had worked towards obtaining for two decades (http://efesevin.wordpress.com.)
In this way, New York Times wrote:

“The rescue of the miners this week shows how much Chile has evolved since Pinochet’s rule ended in 1990.”
(http://efesevin.wordpress.com.)

Besides Chile’s image improving, the country’s international relations were also transformed.
Chile and Bolivia had poor diplomatic relations for more than a century following the War of the Pacific, fought between 1879 and 1883, which resulted in Bolivia losing its coastline to Chile (www.mcentellas.com.)
The relationship between the two nations had been slowly improving throughout the years, but with one of the miners trapped inside the San Jose Mine being Bolivian, the world suddenly saw the two states working effectively together and viewing each other as equals, as neighbours and most importantly as fellow mining nations. This was evident as the Bolivian President Evo Morales travelled to Chile to join President Pinera in greeting the miners, both Chilean and Bolivian, as they were rescued (http://www.msentellas.com/.)

It is truly amazing how a mining accident and the courage of 33 miners have changed the way in which we as common populations, state leaders and an entire international community see one nation.
The efforts of President Pinera can arguably be seen as the very definition of efficient and timely public diplomacy.


Chilean Miners Rescued: Viva Chile (and Chilean Image) (2010), Reaching the Public
http://efesevin.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/chilean-miners-rescued-viva-chile-and-chilean-image/

Bolivia: The Chilean Mining Rescue & A Political Thaw (2010), Pronto
http://www.mcentellas.com/archives/2010/10/bolivia-the-chilean-mining-rescue-a-political-thaw.html

Days 1 through 69: How Best of Man, Machine Saved Chile's Miners (2010), CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/10/15/chile.mine.rescue.recap/index.html

Celebrations as Last Trapped Chile Miner is Rescued (2010), BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11518015

Augusto Pinochet, Dictator Who Ruled by Terror in Chile, Dies at 91 (2006), N.Y. Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/world/americas/11pinochet.html

Aid from you? Thanks, but no thanks!

Public diplomacy it is not a matter of spreading ideas or information to harm or benefit a nation, but it is a way of sharing values with other states and showing them that they are not very different from us. Public diplomacy tries to “win the hearts and minds of people”. However, states can use all kinds of “tactics” to change people’s feelings regarding another country.

The following example caught my attention by the strategy used by the decision-makers, The Hurricane Katrina, which remains fresh in our memory, is a relatively recent event. This incident demonstrated the other side of the USA where racial and socioeconomic differences are relevant. Plus, it made the world question if there actually exists freedom and justice on that country. (2008, p. 224).

Many countries provided aid to the US and Condoleezza Rice asserted that “no offer that can alleviate the suffering of the people in the afflicted area will be refused” (2008, p. 224). Nevertheless, Cuba and Venezuela also pledged help for the hurricane victims. Actually, Castro was one of the first to offer medical supplies and around 1000 doctors to help that region but it was declined because there were already enough American doctors in the area. The offer to provide food, water, and oil by the Venezuelans, despite of the delay, it was accepted by the U.S. government.

Plus, there was an interesting statement of the White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan: “When it comes to Cuba, we have one message for Fidel Castro: He needs to offer the people of Cuba their freedom”. Following Mr. McClellan’s logic the US should not have accepted aid from China, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Or perhaps he thinks that the freedom of people on those countries is less relevant than Cubans’.

The US response, especially to Cuba, promoted these countries as the Good Samaritans and the US as a selfish capitalist. Often public diplomacy is used by these countries to promote themselves worldwide, and domestically it helps them preserve their government. In this case this event only jeopardised and decreased US credibility within that region.

The previous example demonstrates how aid can be used for public diplomacy and how it benefits one country’s image by debilitating another’s. Focusing on authoritarian regimes public diplomacy is extremely important since it promotes the country and their ideals, but also internally it sustains the whole regime.

References

Cowan, G. and Cull, N. (2008) ‘Public diplomacy in a changing world’ in The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol.616

Others: some parts where referenced with links to webpages.

Public Diplomacy

In International Relations, public diplomacy, broadly speaking, is the communication with foreign publics to establish a dialogue designed to inform and influence. According to the USC Centre on Public Diplomacy at the University of South California, Public Diplomacy is something that is widely seen as ‘the transparent means by which a sovereign country communicates with publics in other countries aimed at informing and influencing audiences overseas for the purpose of promoting the national interest and advancing its foreign policy goals’ (USC Centre on Public Diplomacy)

Different governments implement different ways to reach these goals. For example, foreign students studying in different countries are a form of public diplomacy. This can be seen as a ‘good way’. Leguey-Feilleux sees Public Diplomacy as a synonym for public relation, which for him is ‘an extension of the diplomatic mission’ (2009,p.154). However, Berridge relates public diplomacy to propaganda, which widely and commonly refers to manipulation of public opinion through mass media for political ends (2010, p.179).

There are many methods and instruments that are used in Public Diplomacy. Nicholas Cull divides the practice in to five elements: listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, exchange diplomacy and international broadcasting. Methods such as personal contact, broadcasters such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, etc. exchange programs such as International Visitor Leadership program which helps people from different countries and continents to interact with one another and understand each other’s countries and culture. The internet is also vital to practice Public Diplomacy depending on the audience to be communicated with and the message conveyed.

Today, Public Diplomacy is used extensively. In his extensive interview with the BBC Persian Television, President Obama responded not only to the Iranian President’s remarks at the UN General Assembly, but also to some of the concerns of Iranians and Afghans with regards to his administration’s foreign policy. The fact that Obama went to the BBC to talk to Iranian people signals the weakness in the US Public Diplomacy apparatus, namely its own international broadcasting to Iran. Since the US government has established its Persian TV service within Voice of America (VOA PNN) and funded it for nearly 15 years, why should the US president resort to another country’s public diplomacy network to speak to a foreign audience? The reason lies in the size of audience one can reach. Obviously VOA has not been able to reach a sizable audience inside Iran. Obama’s BBC public diplomacy indicates another shift and that is a huge step towards the (old) policy of considering Iranian government separate from its people. While early in his presidency, Obama adhered to engagement; realties in Washington, elections in Iran, and problems on nuclear issue soon weakened his political power. In this interview, Obama seems to be following the same path as other US presidents. He stands tough on human rights issues, adheres to sanctions, doe not rule out an Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran, and tries to talk to the Iranian people rather than the government. Thus, we can see that by using public diplomacy ad talking to the people rather than the government, Obama has tried to change the mind-set of the Iranian people. Through his interview, we can see that Obama has washed his hands off the Ahmadinejad government and would rather weaken it by sanctions and support the Green movement in favor of a future change in the political atmosphere in Iran. This kind of public diplomacy is definitely more effective, as by interacting with the people, they can together try to make a change in the government rather that an international coalition trying to change the government in Iran. (BBC News)

However, one can also say that public diplomacy does not always yield results. This can be seen by the execution of Akmal Shaikh, a British citizen arrested in China last year on charges of drugs smuggling. He might not have been executed if the British government had resorted to secretive diplomacy instead of public diplomacy. By bringing his death sentence in China out in the open, the government tried to pressure China to show clemency towards Akmal. However, the Chinese government had to think about their policies as well. If they did show clemency towards Akmal, then the Chinese people would hold that against their government and would always plead for clemency if a similar situation occurred and the government would have to agree to it. If Britain had held secret talks with the Chinese government, then probably Akmal Shaikh might still be alive. (The Telegraph)

Today, public diplomacy plays a huge role in our lives. Most of the countries are now setting up offices for public diplomacy to boost their image internationally as well as to influence their own citizens. India has just created a new public diplomacy division to educate and influence global and domestic opinion on key policy issues and project a better image of the country commensurate with its rising international standing. (The Times of India)

In conclusion, public diplomacy is important today. It is essential to boost or tarnish the image of a country. It is definitely easier to use public diplomacy if you want to influence people. Obama’s public diplomacy on BBC will hopefully have changed at least one person’s mind-set in Iran. Even with that one person’s changed mind, he can talk to people and probably change others mind-set as well. Public diplomacy is most effective if it is credible and if it were in line with the country’s behavior and foreign policy, in which case it would be closer to ‘public relations’ than public diplomacy. However, there is a fine line between public diplomacy and propaganda. If a country blurs the line, then it is not called as public diplomacy; it is propaganda, which is public relations more than public diplomacy. It is easier to use “soft-power” like public diplomacy instead of using “hard-power” like military intervention. It is easier to use public diplomacy where military interventions will not work.

These are some links to videos that I found very useful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC1b8XZpy8c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3NU4d81Ps4

Public Diplomacy and the Case of Nation Branding

Public diplomacy has strong links with the idea of soft power. According to Joseph Nye ‘soft power works by convincing others to follow, or getting them to agree to, norms and institutions that produce the desired behaviour. Soft power can rest on…the ability to set the agenda in ways that shape the preferences of others’. (Riordan 2003: 120)

Public diplomacy tries to influence nationals in foreign countries but much of the effectiveness of this depends on the acceptance of the receiving audience. (Nye 2004: 99)

Public diplomacy involves building long-term relationships to create enabling environments for government policies through both daily and strategic communications. The development of lasting relationships can be build through scholarships, exchanges, training, seminars, conferences and access to media channels. However, a large part of public diplomacy also deals with selling a positive image of a country. (Ibid.107-9)

This idea of selling an image or nation branding was something that I found extremely interesting. Belinda H.Y Chiu has written an eye-opening article about this topic called Brand USA: Democratic Propaganda in the Third Social Space.

At the most basic level there is nothing new about nation branding or the promotion of positive images of one’s country. However, Chiu goes a lot further than this and claims that ‘traditional approaches to foreign relations are being replaced by marketing strategies to brand nations by enriching their image and reputation’. She claims that in fact ‘every nation is already a brand’. She goes on to compare nation branding to traditional consumer product branding, with the only difference being that ‘the consumers are a diversified set of global citizens and politicians, the company is substituted with the state, and the government acts as the management team’. (Chiu 2007)

The use of commercial terms when talking about what seems to be public diplomacy, was very confusing at first. I thought that Chiu might go too far, but yesterday I spent some time reading some of Alexander Stubb’s (Finland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs) articles and there it was... A whole article called Branding Finland! And there were many more. Apparently Stubb has even set up a panel of experts to ‘brainstorm and develop Finland’s brand by the end of 2010’. The results should be published some time soon. Strikingly Jorma Ollila (the chairman of Nokia) was chosen to head the group, with other well-known figures like Martti Ahtisaari (ex president of Finland and a Nobel price winner). Apparently Chiu is not that wrong and Nation branding is serious stuff right now!

Branding Finland:

http://www.alexstubb.com/artikkelit/2009-01%20BW%20Stubb%20Brand.pdf

A general article about the branding project, from the ministry for foreign affairs of Finland web page:

http://formin.finland.fi/Public/default.aspx?contentid=167928&nodeid=15148&contentlan=2&culture=en-US

Apparently, according to Chiu the importance of this branding is that it allows states to influence (or even craft) how others perceive them. However, she points out in many occasions that a strong brand is not misleading! It is crucial that the brand and product must match. ‘From a marketing standpoint, no matter how sleek and sophisticated the packaging, if the product is bad or broken, the brand will not be successful’. (Chiu 2007) I think that this notion of accuracy is very important for both nation branding and public diplomacy in general, as it might be the only thing that sets them apart from propaganda.

Of course, some argue that this is all mere propaganda. G. R. Berridge seems to think that there is no such thing as public diplomacy. He argues that ‘propaganda is the manipulation of public opinion for political ends and that ‘public diplomacy’ is the modern name for this action’. He goes on to suggest that public diplomacy, as a nametag only exists because of the negative association of propaganda with the systematic spread of lies. (Berridge 2010: 179-181)

Sources

Chiu, B., ‘Brand USA: Democratic Propaganda in the Third Social Space’ in The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations Vol. 8, No. 2, Summer/Fall 2007

G.R. Berridge, 2010. Diplomacy Theory and Practice, 4^th Ed. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan

Joseph S. Nye, 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs

Shaun Riordan, 2003. The New Diplomacy. Cambridge: Polity Press

Branding Finland:

http://www.alexstubb.com/artikkelit/2009-01%20BW%20Stubb%20Brand.pdf

http://formin.finland.fi/Public/default.aspx?contentid=167928&nodeid=15148&contentlan=2&culture=en-US

First and foremost, public diplomacy is the term used to describe states behaviour by influencing foreign countries, through media or speeches, their national self interest.
A good example is Obama’s recent visit to India. Not only has he talked positive about India’s progress on the development of their economy he also has welcomed the idea of India’s permanent seat in the Security Council. It does not necessarily mean that they will have a seat but when we take the fact that India has a seat for the next to years in the security counsel into context, it could be argued that President Obama is promoting national interest by praising India. Furthermore, the trip was important for future economic relations as Obama said:

“It is my firm belief that the relationship between the United States and India --- bound by our shared interests and our shared values will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century. This is the partnership I've come here to build. This is the vision that our nations can realize together.”
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11711007)
However, the Republican Senator Ed Royce wrote President Barack Obama:
“As you know, six foreign companies are competing to sell India 126 new multi-role combat aircraft in a deal that could be worth as much as $11 billion. India's selection process for this aircraft is advancing, with two US companies under active consideration,"
Quote (http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/nov/02/slide-show-1-obama-visit-lets-move-india-away-from-russian-weapons.htm)
Therefore, it can be argued that Obama’s visit and the positive promotion of India is some sort of public diplomacy as it builds up the economic relation and helps to boost America’s economy.
India has a long history of Human rights abuses such as unlawful killings, torture, unjust treatment of women, discrimination against other tribes, corrupted use of police force and many more. Nevertheless, Obama has not raised the human rights issue on his trip which led us to understand the importants of public diplomacy. A realist would argue that states on foreign policy do not priorities human rights agenda but solely self interest.
However, according to the BBC website president Obama’s India trip will be followed by visits to Indonesia, South Korea and Japan on a 10-day Asian which was aimed to tighten economic relation and boost US exports.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1325075/Obama-India-visit-Biggest-US-President-40-planes-6-armoured-cars.html#ixzz14ubxNJJ6

Broken diplomatic relations...

Libya and Switzerland had very close bussiness and bilateral relations in the past. Bussinessmen from Libya established bank accounts in Switzerland and Switzerland was oil supplied by Libya in spite of 1982 embargo on Libyan petrol.

After Libyan`s leader son Hannibal Gaddafi and daughter-in-law were arested in July 2008 in luxury Geneva hotel for abusing their servants, the relationship between states got cold. The couple was detained for two days and than after being questioned were released.

Reaction of Libya was prompt. Muammar al-Gaddafi withdraw $5 billion from his

Swiss bank, shutted

down local swiss companies, canceled commercial flights between states and arrested two Swiss bussinessmen, Max Goeldi and Rachid Hamdani, for violation of visa rules. One of them Max Goeldi was in February 2010 sentenced to four months in prison.

To get released Swiss Bussinessmen, Swiss President Hans Rudilf Merz traveled in August 2009 to Tripoli to apologize for arrests, what was criticized by Swiss public, which called for his resignation.Thi Swiss authorities were considering possibility to use secret forces to release Swiss citizens as well.

Max Goeldi was freed from prison in 12 of Juny 2010. On 13 of June 2010 in Tripoli, Libya and Switzerland signed a ‘plan of action’ (Spain and Germany signatores also), to end their bilateral diplomatic impasse.

This plan of action includes:

-a tribunal will be created to investigate the circumstances surrounding the arest in Geneva of Hannibal Gaddafi in July 2008, to which then Swiss President agreed in principle in August 2009

-Switzerland will offer Libya an official apology for the theft of a police mug shot of Hannibal Gaddafi from police files, and for their publication

in the Tribune de Geneve newspaper, and those who stole tha material will be prosecuted

-Max Goledi`s request for a judical pardon from Libya will be expedited

(genevalumch.com, update 3, 14 June Bern, Switzerland)

In November 2009, voters in Switzerland expresed their oppinion in referendum, from which 57

% voted against minarets in Switzerland. Mr Gaddafi had criticised that vote and said, that Muslims have

to boycott Switzerland. "Let us wage jihad against Switzerland, Zionism and foreign aggression," he said, what Swiss Foreign Ministry

spokesman refused to comment.

(bbc.co.uk, Libya's Gaddafi urges 'holy war' against Switzerland, 26 February 2010)

According to thebroken diplomatic relations, in February 2010, Libya has stopped to issue erty visa to national of any european country within Schengen agreement, except United Kingdom, what was related to Switzerland blacklisting 188 high rank officials including Gaddafi and his family.

This never-ending story was result of inadequate behavior of son of Libyan leader. Situation known as “Gaddfi`s affair” simply said, was just revange for arresting of Hannibal Gaddafi by Swiss authoriries. Since that time, Muammar al-Gaddafi did not miss out one situation to hit Switzerland back. According to the view of expert on islam Reinhard Schulze from University of Bern, Gaddafi is trying to present hisself as a leader of muslim world, but majority of muslims do not take him seriously.

Diplomacy : Old? New? Or just a diplomacy?

The two different terms “old” and “new” diplomacy might make us to see the diplomacy as a something what was before and what is already passé. And something brand new what is relevant now. However I would suggest understanding diplomacy in terms of an evolutionary process. [1] Like an organism it is able to adapt to a new conditions. If it would not adapt it would not survive, therefore particular techniques and practices has disappeared and new have come.  

In the old diplomacy there was a tendency to include just diplomats who have the legitimacy to negotiate, those who are representing particular country.  The diplomacy was a mirror of personal relations between ambassadors, foreign ministry and heads of states. Now days in the era of globalization those traditions are changing. The role of ambassador is changing. His power is declining but his functions have been broadened into different spheres (economic, cultural,...)[2] There is also a new trend - conference diplomacy. It is not just two or three states negotiating. Now multilateral conferences held by states are more common. It is argued that continuous, confidential and informed negotiations are now days impossible.[3] More participants of conference make secrets difficult to keep in secret. It also means that diplomacy has more opened to public. Maas media and information technology allow us to find out more.[4] However, this does not mean that all the issues are announced to the public. The selective release of information will still play a role in diplomacy and politics.

In addition there is no condition that the involved actors in conferences are just states representative. There are new actors in diplomacy. The world has recently undergone a boom of non-state actors. It can be argued that along with globalization, global problems emerged. Sometimes those problems are complicated and needs specialists to bring effective and appropriate solution. Specialist can be those above mentioned non-state actors for example the summit in Copenhagen in December 2009. Environmental changes are complex issues. It was not just state representative but also business leaders and scientists, who were contributing to the summit. However there is also argument against. It is claimed that more actors involved in negotiating might make it very difficult to find an agreement. Others are in opposition to this view, they argue that more actors are bringing more information that might be crucial for decision making.

---

[1] R.P. Barston, Modern diplomacy, Harlow : Pearson Longman, 2006, p 4

[2] Ibid p 5

[3] Kenneth W. Thompson, The New Diplomacy and the Quest for Peace, The United Nations: Accomplishments and Prospects (Summer, 1965),Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 394-409  

[4] Department of Communication, Purdue University, Managing reputation and international relations in the global era: Public diplomacy revisited, , West Lafayette, 12 June 2005,