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