Affiliated with the University of Nicosia | |||||
| |||||
MULTILATERALISM: THE NEW DIPLOMACY1 By Peter Millett
British High Commissioner in the Republic of Cyprus
| |||||
My theme today is diplomacy, the way it has changed over the years
and the impact on the way diplomats operate.
To simplify matters, let’s say that diplomacy has developed in three
stages:
·
bilateral
contact by representatives of Sovereign States, often the personal
representatives of the monarch
·
multilateral
organisations in which states negotiated, set common standards and
in some cases adopted laws
·
to a new development, which might be called “multi-stakeholder
diplomacy” where non-State actors play a significant role in
international affairs.
What is diplomacy?
Perhaps I should also start by defining diplomacy.
There are many definitions of a diplomat:
a person sent abroad to lie for his country or to
spy for his country.
I sometimes think we are condemned to eat and drink for our country.
Perhaps a more cynical approach is to say that when it comes
to give and take, the good diplomat gives one and takes ten.
More seriously, the art of diplomacy is in getting under the
skin of a country, getting to know its people, its language, its
politics, its economy and its culture.
Our aim has to be clear: perhaps facetiously deemed as
letting other people achieve your ends; but it means working
to pursue your country’s interests through a range of contacts in
the country where you are accredited.
It is a job requiring certain skills: not a great intellectual
background or deep technical knowledge but the ability to get on
with people, communicate, adapt to new challenges and make an
impact.
How do you measure success?
Doing well does not only mean that relations are good.
You have to seek added value.
Underlying the diplomat’s role is the main objective of
promoting stability, security and prosperity in the world.
There have been notable failures where the inability to
resolve disputes led to conflict.
Clausewitz’s famous line ‘war is merely a continuation of
politics by other means’.
Furthermore, a famous British politician, Tony Benn, said
that all war represents the failure of diplomacy.
History
I joined the Diplomatic Service having read too many romantic novels
about Colonial Civil Servants writing finely crafted letters back to
London and drinking too many gin and tonics while they waited for
the reply.
Diplomacy started a long time ago.
Indeed, it is said to be the second oldest profession.
It originated when envoys were sent from one state to
another. At that time
the shifting rivalries of Europe put a high priority on kings and
princes forming alliances often by arranging royal marriages.
That bilateral role began to shift over 100 years ago with the
development of multilateral diplomacy and multilateral
organisations. Perhaps
the biggest failure of diplomacy was World War I.
When the Grand-Duke was murdered in Sarajevo there was no
international machinery to prevent the situation from developing
into a major conflict in which millions of people lost their lives.
That tragedy could have been tackled by the sort of international
bodies and contacts that operate now.
The immediate reaction was to create the League of Nations.
After the Second World War the international community
created the United Nations.
Throughout the world the United Nations and its agencies play
a vital role in assisting disadvantaged and needy people by
alleviating poverty and starvation, supporting refugees or ensuring
respect for human rights.
One of the most important roles of the UN is to prevent and resolve
conflict and keep the peace.
We could not do without it.
The organisation of the United Nations and its Special
Representatives and Advisers should be respected and defended in
their actions. We should
all back and express confidence in the United Nations because they
are working towards a common goal: a peaceful, just and prosperous
world.
Other organisations have also brought us peace and prosperity.
In Europe we have seen the important role played by NATO
during the Cold War when the main focus of international diplomacy
was the rivalry between East and West.
The collective security of Europe and the fact that there
have been no major conflicts for 60 years could not have been
achieved without this multilateral forum for political and military
collaboration. That
collaboration has now been extended to NATO activities outside
Europe, eg in Afghanistan.
And of course the European Union has also played a tremendous
role in promoting reconciliation between countries and peoples that
fought wars during the 20th century, in promoting
prosperity within Europe and in conveying a sense of political and
economic strength in the world.
We hope that when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified that role
will grow and deepen the collaboration between European nations.
Indicators of change
Underpinning the international organisations is the important
development of international law.
The United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the
European Convention on Human Rights have established clear
benchmarks against which nations have to measure their international
conduct. In many
multilateral organisations peer pressure can be enough to make
countries change their views and positions.
But the sanction of international law, including ultimately
international war crimes trials, can help to ensure respect for
essential values and rights.
The new challenge and opportunity comes from the concept of “multi-stakeholder”
diplomacy.
International relations are no longer the exclusive right of
bilateral embassies or national representatives.
Non-governmental actors such as NGOs, pressure groups,
companies, even actors and pop stars can influence the way
politicians and governments operate.
The ICRC and League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies have
supported people in zones of conflict and hardship.
The role of Amnesty International has put popular pressure on
governments who commit human rights abuses.
This effort has arguably been more effective than the
international organisations themselves.
Greenpeace and other environmental bodies have raised
environmental issues to the very top of the international agenda.
And the NGO Global Witness
pressing for arms control which led to the ban on landmines.
And popular artists like Bono and Bob Geldof have raised the
profile of poverty and starvation, mobilised ordinary people and
gathered donations.
Another new development is the way diplomacy has become
multi-dimensional.
Diplomats are not only pursuing external relations.
They have to deal with their own domestic policies in an
international framework.
In Brussels, diplomats are negotiating laws and helping Ministers
negotiate the best deals that will then have to be enacted in
domestic law.
Modern diplomacy covers major issues such as trade relations,
migration, climate change and security.
These are all issues which matter to people at home who want
their representatives abroad to make them safer and more prosperous.
Some of the most important issues in the European Union
relate to justice and home affairs, the environment and industrial
development. Indeed,
much of the EU’s agenda is devoted to negotiations on laws where
nations have shared their sovereignty for the greater benefit of the
Union as a whole.
This mix of legislation through diplomacy has lead to a further
major development in the proliferation of summits.
The speed of transport and communications means that Foreign
Ministers and Heads of Government can meet more frequently.
EU Heads of Government meet four times a year in the European
Council. The meetings at
G8, G20 and Ministerial week in New York are all important
opportunities where Heads of Government not only meet but negotiate
and take decisions.
Diplomacy was always political but it has perhaps become more
politicised as diplomats have to prepare the negotiations for their
political leaders to find the final compromises.
It is this emphasis on compromise and the political balance
between internal and external pressures which has made diplomacy
much more complicated and professionally challenging.
The trick is for political leaders to cope with the pressure from
their international partners while also satisfying domestic opinion.
When those agendas conflict, it takes the skill of a
politician to strike the balance between what is achievable in the
international negotiation and meeting expectations at home.
The danger for the politician is that painting himself into a
corner by setting too ambitious objectives can be counter-productive
when the trend in that organisation goes against him.
Implications for diplomats
What does this mean for the profession?
Should a diplomat in future be simply a man who always
remembers a woman’s birthday but never remembers her age?
Or should a diplomat be someone who has such refined skills
that he can tell a person to go to hell in a way which makes them
look forward to the journey?
The role has indeed changed.
But it has not been diminished.
The fact that much EU business is done in Brussels has not
reduced the importance of bilateral embassies in EU countries
explaining and interpreting his host country’s views.
The fact that Heads of Government negotiate in summits has
made it even more important for diplomats to be involved in the
preparation. A diplomat
is no longer a message carrier or a gatherer of information.
He or she is a purveyor of outcomes, a negotiator who needs
to be able to influence his host country and make an impact on that
country’s public opinion.
The Ambassador also has to be a manager, not just a political
representative. In my
first Embassy in Quito in Ecuador I rarely saw the Ambassador unless
he summoned me.
All communications were addressed Your Excellency.
In my High Commission my staff use my first name and I take a
close interest in all aspects of the operation, the budgets and
human resources policy, the issuing of visas and passports and the
promotion of export opportunities.
Many of these things would have been regarded with horror by
my predecessors.
But as international diplomacy has become more specialised, that has
also had implications for the training and expertise we need.
A diplomat should have a general knowledge of many aspects of
international relations but also a deeper knowledge of certain
specialist areas, whether it is the EU, political military issues or
human rights. Being a
one-issue expert doesn’t work anymore.
But neither can we be gifted amateurs as in the past.
Conclusion
Multilateralism might be the new diplomacy.
But traditional diplomacy still flourishes.
A diplomat has to understand the politics of his host country
as well as the politics of his home country.
We have to be adaptable, turning our hand from negotiations
on the big issues of the day such as climate change to managing the
morale of our staff and the complexities of our budgets.
I am glad that the old days have gone.
The Foreign Office I joined 35 years ago has changed beyond
recognition. And I can
assure you that the days when diplomats acted like colonial
governors are long gone.
The contrast with modern diplomacy could not be more stark.
For example, we are now flooded by emails and required to
respond on the spot to the latest images broadcast by CNN or the
BBC. And indeed required
to appear on TV in crises.
We are service providers issuing visas, passports and
commercial services. And
our role in politics is one of analysis and communications, not
interference or conspiracy.
[1]
This paper was
submitted for the conference
Current Trends in
International Relations organized by Cyprus Center for
European and International Affairs
on October 12, 2009
One of the most important roles of the UN is to prevent and resolve
conflict and keep the peace.
We could not do without it.
The organisation of the United Nations and its Special
Representatives and Advisers should be respected and defended in
their actions. We should
all back and express confidence in the United Nations because they
are working towards a common goal: a peaceful, just and prosperous
world.
Other organisations have also brought us peace and prosperity.
In Europe we have seen the important role played by NATO
during the Cold War when the main focus of international diplomacy
was the rivalry between East and West.
The collective security of Europe and the fact that there
have been no major conflicts for 60 years could not have been
achieved without this multilateral forum for political and military
collaboration. That
collaboration has now been extended to NATO activities outside
Europe, eg in Afghanistan.
And of course the European Union has also played a tremendous
role in promoting reconciliation between countries and peoples that
fought wars during the 20th century, in promoting
prosperity within Europe and in conveying a sense of political and
economic strength in the world.
We hope that when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified that role
will grow and deepen the collaboration between European nations.
Indicators of change
Underpinning the international organisations is the important
development of international law.
The United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the
European Convention on Human Rights have established clear
benchmarks against which nations have to measure their international
conduct. In many
multilateral organisations peer pressure can be enough to make
countries change their views and positions.
But the sanction of international law, including ultimately
international war crimes trials, can help to ensure respect for
essential values and rights.
The new challenge and opportunity comes from the concept of “multi-stakeholder”
diplomacy.
International relations are no longer the exclusive right of
bilateral embassies or national representatives.
Non-governmental actors such as NGOs, pressure groups,
companies, even actors and pop stars can influence the way
politicians and governments operate.
The ICRC and League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies have
supported people in zones of conflict and hardship.
The role of Amnesty International has put popular pressure on
governments who commit human rights abuses.
This effort has arguably been more effective than the
international organisations themselves.
Greenpeace and other environmental bodies have raised
environmental issues to the very top of the international agenda.
And the NGO Global Witness
pressing for arms control which led to the ban on landmines.
And popular artists like Bono and Bob Geldof have raised the
profile of poverty and starvation, mobilised ordinary people and
gathered donations.
Another new development is the way diplomacy has become
multi-dimensional.
Diplomats are not only pursuing external relations.
They have to deal with their own domestic policies in an
international framework.
In Brussels, diplomats are negotiating laws and helping Ministers
negotiate the best deals that will then have to be enacted in
domestic law.
Modern diplomacy covers major issues such as trade relations,
migration, climate change and security.
These are all issues which matter to people at home who want
their representatives abroad to make them safer and more prosperous.
Some of the most important issues in the European Union
relate to justice and home affairs, the environment and industrial
development. Indeed,
much of the EU’s agenda is devoted to negotiations on laws where
nations have shared their sovereignty for the greater benefit of the
Union as a whole.
This mix of legislation through diplomacy has lead to a further
major development in the proliferation of summits.
The speed of transport and communications means that Foreign
Ministers and Heads of Government can meet more frequently.
EU Heads of Government meet four times a year in the European
Council. The meetings at
G8, G20 and Ministerial week in New York are all important
opportunities where Heads of Government not only meet but negotiate
and take decisions.
Diplomacy was always political but it has perhaps become more
politicised as diplomats have to prepare the negotiations for their
political leaders to find the final compromises.
It is this emphasis on compromise and the political balance
between internal and external pressures which has made diplomacy
much more complicated and professionally challenging.
The trick is for political leaders to cope with the pressure from
their international partners while also satisfying domestic opinion.
When those agendas conflict, it takes the skill of a
politician to strike the balance between what is achievable in the
international negotiation and meeting expectations at home.
The danger for the politician is that painting himself into a
corner by setting too ambitious objectives can be counter-productive
when the trend in that organisation goes against him.
Implications for diplomats
What does this mean for the profession?
Should a diplomat in future be simply a man who always
remembers a woman’s birthday but never remembers her age?
Or should a diplomat be someone who has such refined skills
that he can tell a person to go to hell in a way which makes them
look forward to the journey?
The role has indeed changed.
But it has not been diminished.
The fact that much EU business is done in Brussels has not
reduced the importance of bilateral embassies in EU countries
explaining and interpreting his host country’s views.
The fact that Heads of Government negotiate in summits has
made it even more important for diplomats to be involved in the
preparation. A diplomat
is no longer a message carrier or a gatherer of information.
He or she is a purveyor of outcomes, a negotiator who needs
to be able to influence his host country and make an impact on that
country’s public opinion.
The Ambassador also has to be a manager, not just a political
representative. In my
first Embassy in Quito in Ecuador I rarely saw the Ambassador unless
he summoned me.
All communications were addressed Your Excellency.
In my High Commission my staff use my first name and I take a
close interest in all aspects of the operation, the budgets and
human resources policy, the issuing of visas and passports and the
promotion of export opportunities.
Many of these things would have been regarded with horror by
my predecessors.
But as international diplomacy has become more specialised, that has
also had implications for the training and expertise we need.
A diplomat should have a general knowledge of many aspects of
international relations but also a deeper knowledge of certain
specialist areas, whether it is the EU, political military issues or
human rights. Being a
one-issue expert doesn’t work anymore.
But neither can we be gifted amateurs as in the past.
Conclusion
Multilateralism might be the new diplomacy.
But traditional diplomacy still flourishes.
A diplomat has to understand the politics of his host country
as well as the politics of his home country.
We have to be adaptable, turning our hand from negotiations
on the big issues of the day such as climate change to managing the
morale of our staff and the complexities of our budgets.
I am glad that the old days have gone.
The Foreign Office I joined 35 years ago has changed beyond
recognition. And I can
assure you that the days when diplomats acted like colonial
governors are long gone.
The contrast with modern diplomacy could not be more stark.
For example, we are now flooded by emails and required to
respond on the spot to the latest images broadcast by CNN or the
BBC. And indeed required
to appear on TV in crises.
We are service providers issuing visas, passports and
commercial services. And
our role in politics is one of analysis and communications, not
interference or conspiracy.
| |||||
| |||||
Cyprus Center for European and International Affairs Copyright © 2009. All rights reserved | |||||
Makedonitissis 46, 2417 Egkomi CYPRUS | P.O.Box 24005, 1700 CYPRUS t: +35722841600 | f: +35722357964 | cceia@unic.ac.cy | www.cceia.unic.ac.cy |