 |
|
DIPLOMACY
AS AN INSTRUMENT OF GOOD GOVERNANCE - Vladimir Petrovski
|
|
|
NEW CHALLENGES
New Challenges
One hundred years ago the question of the future of diplomacy was raised as a result of
technological progress - the invention of the radio and telegraph and the intervention of
public into the domain of foreign policy. The first factor brought the apprehension that
diplomats would become "honorary mailmen" and the second raised the issue of
open diplomacy. However, the role of diplomacy in the twentieth century has not been
restricted by these two factors.
The functioning of diplomacy is influenced by a complicated combination of different
interrelated factors and I would like to start with a brief analysis of their impact on
the evolution of diplomacy.
To begin with, there is a set of political factors. During most of the twentieth
century, two world wars, the Cold War, the rivalry of two super powers, the ideologization
of international affairs and military confrontation have made diplomacy a subsidiary
instrument of power politics and ideology. As a result, diplomacy has very often executed
the "dance of death." The end of the Cold War has radically changed the
international political scene. Moreover, today we are facing the shift of the
civilizational paradigm, which affects not only the major units of world polities - the
states - but which also brings new actors into the forefront of international relations.
The major political factor influencing diplomacy is the relative decline of the role of
the national governments. Today governments are facing stern competition from other
actors. Private sector, religious groups, immigrants, media and other entities of the
civil society are demanding from the government that their interests be taken into
consideration and that they have a say in making and implementing foreign policy. People
want to travel freely, to conduct business abroad or to be involved in various types of
cultural exchange.
Perhaps the most active "intruders" into the modern diplomacy from outside
are non-governmental organisations (NGOs). This is particularly well seen from the UN
viewpoint. For example, in Geneva there are currently about 1,400 NGOs officially
registered with the UN Office. All of them are international, and have branches in at
least two or more countries. Although their status is different from that of the
diplomats, in practice they often participate in the diplomatic process, in particular in
the promotion and discussion of such issues as human rights and environmental protection.
Nowadays, international decisions are more often shaped according to the opinions of the
NGOs. Gradually they are expanding the sphere of their influence. Last year NGOs prevented
the adoption of the Convention on the Copyright Law in Electronic Media which was prepared
by the International Telecommunications Union. Perhaps the most vivid example of their
influence is the world-wide campaign to ban anti-personnel land-mines which led to the
signature in Ottawa last December of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use,
Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Antipersonnel Mines.
Curiously, not only NGOs but legislative branches of the states themselves are
contributing to this diplomatic process. The parliamentarians of the world have
successfully set up a structure of global and regional interaction and are now claiming a
role in diplomatic meetings which was traditionally reserved for the executive branch.
An important aspect of the "degovernmentalization" of foreign affairs is the
growing involvement in the international interactions of local or provincial authorities.
I had an opportunity to observe this phenomenon on numerous occasions. For example, it is
not uncommon for the heads of a local government to visit a UN agency because they wish to
participate in its programmes directly rather than through the national government. A few
years ago this was difficult to imagine. During the conference of the mayors of the
Mediterranean cities in Barcelona, many recognised that they often have more close
economic or cultural ties with their partners across the sea than with their national
capitals. Many big cities and provinces have enough resources not just to influence the
national governments but also to actually maintain their own "diplomatic"
agencies.
The immediate implication of this development for the diplomatic practitioners is that
now, in addition to their colleagues representing formally recognised states, they also
have to deal with numerous other non-state counterparts who conduct their own
"foreign policy."
On the macro level, one of the major developments is the proliferation of multinational
institutions and regional and subregional organisations. The EU, APEC, ASEAN, CIS, NAFTA,
- this is just a short list of the most well known transnational structures which claim
part of their members sovereignty. The major motive behind their creation is the
same as in the case of the increased activity of the local authorities - to facilitate
cross-border co-operation and to weaken or eliminate restrictions imposed by the national
states, such as customs tariffs.
The second set of factors that makes the life of a modern diplomat increasingly
difficult is of an economic nature. In general I would say that economic diplomacy is
gradually taking over the traditional politics-oriented diplomacy. A lot has been written
in recent years about the phenomenal growth of transnational economic interactions.
Indeed, with the huge expansion of international trade, the power of private companies and
the electronic transfer of money, private entrepreneurs and fund managers are eclipsing
central bankers and finance ministers.
Meanwhile the international economy is becoming more and more competitive. With the
rapid development of the Pacific Rim countries, and the opening to the outside world of
the economies of such huge states as China and Russia, the world market has expanded
dramatically, but so has the number of economic actors. Governments everywhere are
primarily concerned with maintaining the competitiveness of their economies. Accordingly,
private economic decisions are now largely controlling political choices of the
governments, and diplomats have to devote more time and energy than ever before to the
creation of a favourable environment for trade and commerce.
Last but not least, an important factor influencing modern diplomacy is the revolution
in telecommunications. This is a big issue that deserves special attention. Of particular
relevance to the diplomatic services are two technological developments - satellite
broadcasting and digital networks including the Internet. I will not go into detail on the
technological problem, as this afternoon we will have a special session on this issue. I
would like just to give you a few examples of the use of modern technology at the United
Nations.
One of the functions of the diplomatic missions accredited to UNOG is to collect UN
documents and send them to their Foreign Ministries or other government agencies in their
capitals. A few years ago UNOG introduced an electronic system of document distribution.
It is no longer necessary for the missions staff to collect documents from the
Palais des Nations - they can obtain them via computer connection without leaving their
offices. Now we are about to introduce another innovation. Soon the documents database
will be connected to the Internet. Accordingly, the Foreign Ministries will be able to
retrieve the documents they need, directly bypassing the missions. In fact, some Foreign
Ministries have already subscribed to this new service and we have started to receive
requests for particular documents. This could mean in particular that the missions are
losing one of their functions.
To take a further example, currently the senior managers at the UN are being provided
with video-conferencing equipment. This technology is already widely used in many large
companies. The cabinet meetings of the Secretary-General are held with the participation
of Geneva, Vienna and Nairobi senior managers using video equipment. I understand that
national foreign services are also experimenting with this kind of facility. In future we
could easily imagine a situation where presidents, prime ministers or foreign ministers
would be able to hold direct instantaneous face-to-face communication with each other, in
addition to simultaneous data transfer. The consequences of this technological development
for the diplomatic services could be quite significant. How should the role of the
embassies or the missions change in this environment?
All this testifies to the increasing interdependence in the world. Now, problems which
affect one part of the worlds population can spread very rapidly to the entire
planet. Like passengers of Leonardo da Vincis ship, all of us - rich and poor, women
and men, young and old, white and black - share a common destiny. In the words of Albert
Einstein "the world is one or nothing."
The process of globalisation, which strengthens the "oneness" of the world
is, at the same time, accompanied by the fragmentation and localisation by the growing gap
between rich and poor nations. Moreover, this process is characterised by the acceleration
of the pace of events. Time has become "compressed."
All these transformations bring new challenges for diplomacy on a global level: the
maintenance of positive peace and comprehensive security, democratisation, the promotion
of human rights, economic co-operation and sustainable development, facilitation of
humanitarian actions, prevention of terrorism and criminal activity.
Today diplomacy is called upon to help political and economic leaders to channel the
global changes in an evolutionary, non-violent, democratic rule-based manner. One of its
top priorities is facilitation of good governance, both on national and international
levels. The prospect of good governance provides an opportunity for the renaissance of
diplomacy which, throughout the centuries, played the role of an intermediary between
governments and acquired a unique experience in this field. Now it has a chance to become
an instrument of international governance. How can diplomacy cope with this new challenge?
|