Oxfam Climate Change Ad

Trade and environment diplomacy

UN Climate Change Conference: Cancun

It is transparent that the significance of non-state actors in negotiations within the international arena has grown. Increasingly states are reliant on specialist information and new content in areas of policy, which are critical. Some areas include: economy, environment, security, and trade.

An example of the significance of non-government organisations within negotiations is the recent United Nations Environmental Cancun Summit. On the third day the summit entailed Proposals to reform the global carbon market dominated the third day of the international climate change. The summit turned to deadlock due to that negotiators such as Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing states stepped up calls for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects to be granted the right to issue carbon credits under the CDM – a proposal fiercely opposed by Brazil and a number of countries.
Negotiators from non-profit organizations where present to put pressure on countries such as Saudi Arabia to comply and understand the important cause.

The negotiations prompted calls from carbon traders for diplomats to urgently reach an agreement on the future of the scheme or risk fuelling fears the CDM will fold in 2012.

Henry Derwent, president and chief executive of the International Emissions Trading Association, in a statement.
"It is in no one's interest to let the future of the most successful mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol become a bargaining chip in these negotiations. And it would be tragic if mixed signals about how the CDM could be used across the world in the future deter desperately needed investment in developing countries."

This demonstrates the significance of non-profit organizations not just in relation to the cause but also to developing states, which do not hold as much power when in negotiations.

This is one example of such necessity for non-profit organizations, without such actors the powerful states may manipulate multilateral instances.

The Transparent Actors

In the context of the technological revolution the diplomatic stairway has undergone elaborate renovation to an extent where it appears almost unrecognisable. Methods of communication, the code of conduct and the nature of negotiations all account for great contributions to the list of change. But the diplomatic stairway has simultaneously added additional steps on which we recognise new actors such as NGOs and MNCs whose influence, albeit its degree remains disputed, has grown in both quantity and quality.
Its explanatory power surfaces with the expansion of global issues whose remedies are often explored across borders and with increasing international cooperation to which NGOs posses knowledge gained on a specific area in question . Rahman and Roncerel point to an exchange of expertise thrown from the global North to the global South and vice versa, enhancing their ability to comprehend environmental issues outside their immediate attention . Their engagement often exceeds their governmental counterparts whose focus is split on the overlapping consequences of trade, environment and the political economy.
However, Cooper and Hocking initially treat the problem of exclusion of NGOs in the major negotiations of trade and the environment where government representatives still hold the final vote. Their significance should, nonetheless, not be underestimated because, as Carpenter mentions himself, the relevance of governments is in decline combined with NGOs who may appear more legitimate in their ambitions and more likely to speak with the voice of civil society. They raise awareness among citizens and governments and pressure the agenda to encompass issues which, perhaps, would otherwise be ignored. Rahman and Roncerel mention examples where NGOs have actually been rather influential in the development of environmental national policies and negotiation positions and have been adequately recognised to observe high-level discussions. Moreover, negotiators may be directly dependent on non state actors for their exclusive expertise.
The examination of the role of non state actors in negotiations leaves the impression that although it is growing, often in the cases when problems exist beyond the control of governments, they remain observers and organizations of initiative and suggestions. Their direct participation is still missing despite their indirect influence which has indeed added pivotal issues to the international agenda and increased the pressure- a tendency which has spread to the civil society, witnessed in the Battle of Seattle. Nevertheless, it appears to be this indirect position which allows them to encircle governments in the decision making process in their demand for openness and transparency and last but not least, the support of those governments in a less favourable position around the negotiation table. Both labour organizations and environmentalists were present in Seattle and the mutuality and common ground found in this chaos suggest determination to confront – and disturb- the talks taking place behind closed doors . Richard Langhorne focuses on the lack of sufficient representation of non state actors explained by uncertainty regarding the credibility of their role and their actual representatives . As they simultaneously challenge the legitimacy of the state, a diplomatic hole will consequently emerge which must be filled by either the state or NSAs- or both.
There is no doubt that globalization has carried with it a legacy of multiple actors on the international stage, but given its relatively short existence, NSAs still have unfinished homework, which, once completed, may find themselves more involved in the negotiations of both trade and the environment.

Trade diplomacy of non-state actors

It is not disputable that the significance of the non-state actors' role in trade in nowadays greater than it used to be, however, it still remains limited comparing to the states' impact. The area of activity of NSAs in trade is quite broad and extends from local to international level (Milner, Moravcsik, 2009). Some NSAs and NSA alliances work on issues including financing and training of businesses, trade policy and negotiations and economic development. Nonetheless, their biggest importance lays probably in the ability to trasfer the public opinion to the international negotiations, as well as in being kind of a "watchdog", controlling what is happening behing the doors closed to the public and "governing the governors". NSAs were recognized as significant global figures for example by being given the right to submit amicus curiae briefs in WTO disputes (Lopez, 2001).
 The capability to reshape global governance patterns and the importance of the non-state voice was particularly visible in the Seattle protests in 1999, where the Millenium Round was abandoned partly because of the public demonstrations, but also because of the NGOs opposition. Moreover, a year earlier, NSAs played a significant role in trials to inhibit the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. Lobbying by NGOs and 'reform oriented' think tanksbrought attention of more influential global institutions to alleviating the social costs of economic restructuring Scholte, 2000). Also under the pressure of non-state actors, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the IMF, the WTO and the World Bank have increased public relations and disclosures regarding their policies and decisions (ibid.).
An example of the NSA involvement in trade and aid negotiations can be the Cotonou Agreement in 2002, which introduced a new participatory approach. The Agreement defined the NSA participation as a fundamental principle of the cooperation between the EU and African Carribean and pacific countries. It was supposed to encourage integration of all sections of the society, however, the NSAs' participation was meant to be limited to information and consultation, while, the decision-making process is left to the State actors.
The issue of aid packages or aid offset agreements for some specific states or groups of states are just one of the many areas in multilateral trade negotiations, but thanks to organizations like for instance, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) the problem can be raised on the level of WTO. The immediate effect of participation in WTO disputes is the demonstration of the livelihood concerns, but the long term effect is influencing economic governance and policy-making processes to focus more on people, therefore the growing importance of NSAs participation in global trade, in the times of democracy and cooperation.

evolution of diplomacy

Diplomacy in one form or another has had a long history, dating back to the beginning of political states. Since the nature, size, and composition of these states varied, so did the system of relations between them. Usually such relations were simple and personal, but in time they became more complex as the political entities became better organized and more tightly controlled. Furthermore, diplomacy was conceded to be irreplaceably useful. The nature and functioning of the diplomatic machine at any particular historical moment could of itself shape the way in which principals conducted their exchanges. Thus it has occasionally occurred that functions which had developed within diplomacy came to create a particular international activity simply because they existed. Those international activities had a different features, own beginnings and the end, but all of it is connected between. For example the Vienna Convention of 1961 begins: “Recalling that peoples of all nations from ancient times have recognized the status of diplomatic agents…” (McClanahan, G., V. 1989,18). How far back do these ancient times extend? Probably it extends into prehistory. There are two statements, which belong to Thucydides (Ancient Greece) and Cardinal Richelieu (17th century, France) what emphasizes common features between two different representatives, different environments and centuries:

“In matters of state,” wrote Richelieu in his Political Testament, “he who has the power, often has the right, and he who is weak can only with difficulty keep from being wrong in the opinion of the majority of the world” <…>

(Kissinger, H., 1994, 65)

According to Thucydides:

“The standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept… this is the safe rule – to stand up to one’s equals, to behave with deference to one’s superiors, and to treat one’s inferiors with moderation.”

(Jackson, R., Sorensen, G., 2007, 63)

It can be assumed that some features of diplomacy have not been changed from ancient centuries and takes a place in area of modern diplomacy. Only environment and instruments are different. The main player in diplomacy is still the same as it was ages ago – power and influence. Furthermore, the origins of diplomacy could reach the dates where are no written historical records, when people started to negotiate with each other instead of killing each other. The diplomacy we have today is formatted by past experiences and environmental atmosphere which is inescapable related with each other.

Bibliography:

Jackson, R., Sorensen, G., (2007), Introduction to International Relations, Theories and Approaches, Oxford University Press, New York

Kissinger,H.,(1994), Diplomacy, Simon&Shuster Rockefeller Center, New York

McClanahan, G., V., (1989), Diplomatic immunity: principles, practices, problems, St. Martin’s Press, New York

NGOs and environmental diplomacy

Recently, the influence of non-state actors on resolving issues of international importance has gradually increased. Their role in conducting diplomacy with other state actors has become more powerful than ever. Being politically independent, NGOs may get involved in any matter they wish and introduce their own solutions. This fact makes NGOs’ diplomacy much easier and simply unlimited.
I would like to give an example of an environmental case where the contribution of non-state actors was of a great importance. Unquestionably, their work proved to be efficient enough to make the world hear about the problem. It is the bottom trawling issue that I am going to mention. This practice caused huge destruction to the marine biological life. In 2004, the United Nations General Assembly launched an Informal Working Group (Nao Iwamura 2009;49) to discuss the problem and look for any possible solutions. There were many actors participating. Among governmental representatives , UN agencies and fishing industry’s delegates, various NGOs were involved, as well. The non-state actors were strongly opting for implementing a ban on trawling on high sea bottom. In order to strengthen their position and make their arguments more persuasive, they set up the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition in 2004. The idea was supported by several NGOs: Conservation International, Greenpeace international, World Conservation, The Marine Conservation Biology Institute, the Natural resources Defense Council, The New England Aquarium and many many more (BBC News, 6th Oct. 2004). The biggest success of the mentioned Coalition was that it enormously persuaded the UN to proclaim a global moratorium on bottom trawling. Some NGOs were really engaged into implementing the commitments stated in the moratorium. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural resources were given the Permanent Observer status from the UNGA. They tried to take some legal actions and publicly disapproved of numerous states’ behavior. It was in the wake of lack of obedience from some countries towards the new moratorium. Unfortunately the 2004 resolution is the only document that NGOs may refer to when pushing for any major revision in member states’ policies.
Presenting the above case I intended to demonstrate that today, NGOs are recognized as equal members of dynamic political negotiations and take active role in conducting diplomacy. They promote diverse issues and very often have a grand impact on the pace of implementing any amendments and declaring resolutions . Their great influence and dominant position, unquestionably, results from financial support, having many international agencies and no political ties. These allow them to act independently using diverse methods and adopt preferred attitudes.

The most important aspect of the New Diplomacy

Firstly it must be noted that public diplomacy and Diplomacy of NGO’s are significant factors within New Diplomacy. However, I feel that the most prominent factor is the fashion of multilateral diplomacy.

G. R. Berridge defines the new fashion as ‘diplomacy conducted via conferences,’ he further states that they can vary in size, level of attendance and wide ranging agendas. This allows the element of inclusiveness to flourish, as more states can be represented. Especially in such conferences such as the United Nations: the general assembly allows 192 member states to participate in discussion of a large forum.

A problem: ‘Only about one third of all possible directed country pairs show evidence of diplomatic representation.’ (Neumayer 2008:230) This statement signifies that not all states such as Gahanna can hold permanent missions in all countries across the world. For many developing and underdeveloped states such representation is not feasible to exist. For states that are developed, such as Denmark, there are simply not enough resources for all permanent missions to exist. Power states such as the United Kingdom and the USA do not have this problem and can represent themselves in nearly all countries across world. Multilateral diplomacy allows all states to interact, build relationships and network.

The vital reason that multilateral diplomacy is the most important aspect is the reality of inclusion.
All 192 members of the United Nations are included in debates and voting on matters of peace and security, admission of new members and budgetary matters. Even states with little resources are included in making decisions of matters on a global scale.
A second reason why I feel multilateralism is the most important aspect of the New Diplomacy is the factor of rising extreme global issues. Theses issues include: AIDS, climate change, children, development, human rights, peace and terrorism. Due to multilateral diplomacy, Programmes have been created in tackling some of the major problems that the world faces. For example, UNAIDS was created as a joint United Nations programme which Unites ‘the efforts of the United Nations system, civil society, national governments, the private sector, global institutions and people living with and most affected by HIV’ (UNAIDS 2010: 1) Without these multilateral instances many of the problems which are tackled could spiral from a state control.

Moreover, in a globalized world in which all economies are more interdependent than ever, there is a requirement for multilateral focus within the international arena. The G20 is a prime example of this: during the world financial crisis in 2009, 20 states arranged a forum to discuss the key issues of the global economy. If this type of meeting was not held, intentions and agendas of states affected by the crisis may not have been heard and ultimately the financial crisis could have been a reoccurrence of the 1930’s great depression.

Transparently, there is a consensus that multilateral diplomacy is required in the contemporary world system. It creates and allows states with fewer resources to have recognition within the international stage. Furthermore, multilateral diplomacy allows countries to address global issues that affect all ranges of people.

References:

About UNAIDSUNAIDSTODAY | UNAIDSTODAY. 2010. About UNAIDSUNAIDSTODAY | UNAIDSTODAY. [ONLINE] Available at: http://unaidstoday.org/?page_id=703. [Accessed 17 December 2010].

Berridge, James, A dictionary of diplomacy: 2nd edition (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003)

G. R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 4th edition Diplomatic Theory and Practice Fourth Edition, G.R Berridge, 2010.

Neumayer, E., 2008, Distance, Power and Ideology: Diplomatic Representation in a World of Nation-States. Article, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Geography and Environment, 228-236.

United Nations Global Issues - Home. 2010. United Nations Global Issues - Home. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/. [Accessed 17 December 2010].

G20 | World news | guardian.co.uk . 2010. G20 | World news | guardian.co.uk . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/g20. [Accessed 17 December 2010].

Soft Power Public Diplomacy: Joseph Nye and why China gets it but the neocons don't

'Rumsfeld said, “I just don’t understand what it (Soft Power) means.” And my reaction to that is, it’s part of the problem.' Joseph Nye

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/joseph_nye_on_global_power_shifts.html

In this talk given by Joseph Nye he weaves his arguments in favour of the deployment of more effective 'Soft Power' into the fabric of current global shifts. In particular the predictions surrounding the rise to power of China. He points out that the predictions are inherently linear when in fact it is oversimplistic to look at economic indicators and say 'China will overtake the US in economic terms' by a certain date. These trends have to be attended to by politicians and diplomats in their 'Smart Power' assessments of current and future outcomes. 'Smart Power' is a development of  'soft power'. It is said that when 'Donald Rumsfeld first heard the phrase ('Soft Power') he didn't know what it meant' (Joel Whitney 2008). Furthermore China need not be the threat to world stability that she is sometimes portrayed in recent times. The key to how she is seen lies in cooperation and discussion around the table at the higher levels. This must also be coupled with the understanding that China's gain need not mean our loss. The 'zero sum game' obsession that some people like to vocalise internationally is becoming less applicable- I think this would be disputed between those with weight on the international stage.  So Nye is saying  to use part of the oft quoted Ethelbert Talbot saying; “The important thing... is not so much winning as taking part.” Nye states that recent discussions about the waning of US power are part of  a periodic and ongoing discussion which has recurred with some regularity since 1958. He refers to the 'privatisation of war' almost casually as if this is a neo-liberal trend we will have to accept almost without question which I find contentious.

"We rarely speak of the soft power of attraction, of persuasion. Soft power is an analytical term, not a rallying cry, and perhaps that is why it has taken hold in academic and business discussions, and in other parts  of the world like Europe, China, and India, but not in the American political debate." (How soft is smart, Joel Whitney interviews Joseph Nye, October 2008)

In this way Nye points to 'Soft Power' being a tool or instrument of Public Diplomacy. The minimal use of coercion with 'carrots' and 'sticks' and the hidden powers of persuasion and attraction with the occasional political 'nudge' thrown in. The last is my addition to the lexicographical pantheon. (The current UK government are convinced that we can be behaviourally 'nudged' into doing the states bidding at home and abroad.) Nye is also stating in benign patrician tones that this has been the way forward for the US role in international affairs since the dark napalmed mornings of Vietnam and so far when Presidents have been aware of the term it has served the US better. Obama's soft power weapon from the outset was his ability to restore America's image internationally. However his success abroad in 'soft power' terms has been perceived by some at home in the US as a weakness by the gung-ho 'hard power' Neo-Con enthusiasts.

 "It struck me that there was something intangible—ideas, values—and it struck me that humans are moved by ideas and values, and it may not be tangible or hard, but it’s still a form of power, and that led me to the idea of soft power." (Nye to Whitney, 2008)