Over the past century diplomacy has developed at a rapid rate, with changing communicative technology and the increase in NGO and non-state actor participation people have begun to view their governments differently. They are no longer the only parties involved in the diplomatic process and this is where the term ‘new’ diplomacy comes in.
Even though the participation of non-state actors is vast, I believe that it is the NGOs which have the largest impact. They can be partly or fully funded by the public and so public opinion of them is generally quite high and important. A development in diplomacy is that people now expect NGOs to get involved in the diplomatic process in many instances, more so than governments and many years ago this certainly would not have been the case.
In view of public opinion NGOs are often seen as more trust worthy than governments, this is unfortunate for them but beneficial to NGOs. Of course over the year’s states have found a way of benefiting from this development by employing NGOs to partake in work which would not place them in a favourable light to either the public or other governments.
In recent years many countries have reduced their global networks and allowed NGOs to replace them. NGOs are often sought out as they can have more expertise in a particular area. Often the information acquired by such organisations would be more readily available to them so a government presence is not required. This of course leads to problems as many but not all NGOs are distrustful of governments. Another problem which can arise is the deniability aspect. An NGO is a legitimate institution but does not have to take responsibility in the same respect that a government has to; a government is answerable to its people while an NGO is not. NGOs can be larger and can encompass an international membership so often have more power for change than a government; this in itself can create a paradox for the state.
As this form of diplomacy is relatively new it has not yet been developed to its full potential or as of yet developed an established history. It is currently affecting our global politics in a way never conceived and only time will tell whether this ‘new’ diplomacy will be successful or not. As it currently stands though, NGOs have been successful in incorporating themselves into the diplomatic process and I can’t see them leaving any time soon.
Hi Shanna.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the points you made about the rising importance of NGO's in the modern diplomacy. In my opinion, diplomats representing NGO's can achieve something that governmental diplomats cannot because they are not bound by state boundaries and national interests. NGO's are therefore a very effective way to fight against international issues such as the environment, poverty, sexual and racial discrimination or even terrorism. I would attach a very important link from the UN website dealing with climate change and other environmental concerns in the end of this comment.
I believe that perhaps people can identify themselves more to NGO's as well, thus making the latter a very effective way in raising global awareness. The reason why people would identify well with NGO's is that, as stated before, they are not bound by national interest and therefore people can globally identify with the organization.
However, NGO's cannot replace the role of states in the international system in maintaining global security and a good example of this is the ineffectiveness of the United Nations' Security Council. Mentioning the reasons of the failure of NGOs to take care of global security would be the matter for an entire essay but broadly NGOs simple lack the required authority to introduce fundamental changes in a world system that is by nature anarchical.
I just realised I forgot to attach the link to my comment which is the following :
ReplyDeletehttp://ochaonline.un.org/ochahome/InFocus/ClimateChangeHumanitarianImpact/tabid/5930/language/en-US/Default.aspx