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.