My view of diplomacy today

Some time last October we had our first lesson about diplomacy and we were asked to write down our first impressions about what “the new diplomacy” might mean. Today our answers were handed back. I can still remember how difficult that tiny task was and to be honest I sat at least half of the allocated time staring at an empty paper, but to my great surprise I had actually managed to write down something (I had completely forgotten this and thought I had handed in an empty paper) and here is what I thought back then;

“…the concept of diplomacy is changing or has changed from what it traditionally used to be. The new part being the emergence of new actors including international organisations and trans-national corporations, which have such a huge importance in the modern world that they cannot be ignored…”

It was far from a complete or perfect answer (!) and after twelve weeks of intensive lectures about the subject, plus the seminars and numerous chapters from various books accompanied by a pile of articles I would not be so sure about the changed nature of diplomacy. It seems that in both, in my first impression –note and also in my original ideas for the first blog post (about the most important change in the nature of diplomacy) I was hoping to find some massive and radical changes if not a complete revolution. However, today I am willing to conclude that even though diplomacy has evolved a lot (and as a result of this the term new diplomacy might be beneficiary in describing the point where it is today) it has also kept many traditional aspects. Thus I am not even sure that there is such a thing as the new diplomacy, instead we are at the phase of diplomacy that is suitable for today’s world order and as long as the world keeps changing, diplomacy keeps evolving in response. Even the “new” actors, namely non-state actors including international non-governmental organisations (not just any organisations!) are simply a part of this process and maybe one of the catalysts for the changes in the very nature of diplomacy. In the beginning of the course I was expecting the “old” and “new” diplomacy to be radically different but instead they seem to co-exist peacefully and means of both are used when needed.

During the twelve weeks I have managed to learn a great deal about diplomacy and broaden my perspectives about it. I must admit that conference and summit diplomacy had rarely passed my mind, with their advantages of openness and inclusiveness of most (if not all) of the states as equals in negotiations. But next to this openness still remains the need for back channels and a great deal of secrecy, a traditional parts of the “old diplomacy” that seems to be as necessary as before, especially in times of crisis. However, what I found most interesting topic of the course was the area of public diplomacy, which some argue is simply a fancy new name for propaganda. I do not completely agree with this view and believe that there is much more to it, from promoting once country to actually aiming to achieve long lasting friendly relationships. It is thus important to remember, that selling a bad product (as would be the case with propaganda) will not work in the long run!

Funnily enough, when I was about 7 I once told my aunt that when I grow up I wanted to become a diplomat and I would love to know what the 7 year old me thought was the concept of diplomacy! While diplomacy might no longer remain my dream career it has definitely been a fascinating area to study, not least because of its complexity and at times I still find it hard to define what is actually within the discipline and what is not. I cannot but wonder for example whether Bono is a diplomat (of some sort) when travelling around the world and meeting with some heads of states or simply a star on a fascinating journey. There obviously is no clear answer.

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

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

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

THE WONDERS OF TECHNOLOGY?

“Technology… is a queer thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other.”

C. P. Snow

Having the task to consider the most significant changes in the nature of diplomacy I immediately set my mind in the aspect of technological development. From my childhood I can still clearly remember my great-grandfather telling me how in his youth it was rather impossible to get to school on time, as there was not a single clock in his home. When he passed away a few years ago, the world had gone through some amazing transitions. Considering the effect these transitions had in one man’s life, I could not but wonder the scope of transformation that the art of diplomacy must have gone through. That was only a few days ago, however, I now know that the truth is no way near as simple as my original thesis suggests.

Let me explain. From ancient times until the 19^th century diplomatic messages were carried by hand. Now different forms of telecommunication carry these messages. Electric telegraph was the first one to have a major impact on diplomacy, followed by radio telegraphy, telephones, fax machines, electronic mail, mobile phones and today we even have the possibility of multi-media video-conferencing, although the last one is still rarely used. (Berridge 2010:192-3, 201)

Now, telephone is the easiest and fastest way to reach some one miles away. Telephones are easy to use, misunderstandings can be corrected immediately and the tone and volume of one’s voice can help to send signals and add personal touch. Even President Barack Obama is known to wear a BlackBerry on his hip. Telephones can be very useful during times of major crisis. But this is mainly the case with allies, when there are no language barriers and no worries of misuse of possible slips of the tongue. (Ibid.195-202)

However, according to G. R. Berridge there are major problems with the use of telecommunication as a tool of diplomacy. For example the lack of non-verbal communication is apparent. There is no way to add nuance to an oral message by the use of body language, dress and venue or to ‘say one thing but mean another’. Also, with telecommunication there is no time for consultation, which might lead to either hasty decision, or no decision at all. In addition there is always the risk of eavesdropping. (Ibid.193-4)

The problems of telephone diplomacy mentioned above might be some of the reasons why the famous hot line between the White House and Kremlin, set up in 1963, is not a telephone connection but a telegraph link. Haraldur Pór Egilsson’s The origins, use and development of hot line diplomacy explains in depth the origins of the hot line and the reasons for never adding speech facilities even though other modifications have been made. Telephone has become an important channel for the conduct of diplomacy but there are major risks and limits involved.

Out of even more resent technology, email has achieved a firm position as the modern written mode of telecommunication but there are security risks because of highly talented hackers. (Ibid. 203)

Technological change is also responsible for the development of fast and easy international travel. Gone are the days of long ship journeys to distant countries. Instead it is possible to travel just about anywhere in this planet within 24 hours. This has affected the roles of ambassadors, as heads of states and ministers no longer have to rely purely on their services. Yet another feature of change technology has created, is the amount of information available through the electronic media. Today the practitioners of diplomacy have to face the general public (under the influence of the CNN effect) and the increasing possibility of public debate. (Riordan 2003: 58-62)

Even if all this new technology has not revolutionized diplomacy, it has been a helpful (though at times unreliable) tool in the conduct of negotiations and brought people separated by great distances a lot closer.

Lastly, Haraldur Pór Egilsson points out how popular culture shapes people’s conceptions of diplomacy and diplomatic instruments. He focuses on the Washington- Moscow hot line and how such films as Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove have created the false belief of it being a telephone line. Here is a clip of the delusive, yet absolutely fantastic film!

References:

Riordan, Shaun, 2003 The New Diplomacy

Berridge, G. R. 2010 Diplomacy Theory and Practice, 4th Ed

Egilson, Haraldur P. The origins, use and development of hot line diplomacy http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2003/20030500_cli_paper_dip_issue85.pdf