Diplomacy and the New Players

Diplomacy has not been invented in modern times. Diplomacy between states has been practiced since the formation of the first city-states. The traditional diplomacy was based on a secure sovereign state with a commonly agreed national identity. Their key responsibility of diplomacy then was to communicate between governments. The only affairs of their communication or negotiations were foreign policy, defined as the relations between states. While in the course of time only the nature and structure of arrangements mutated, most of the ‘old’ diplomacy remain dynamic in the ‘new’ diplomacy. Diplomacy is no longer limited to high-level government officials sitting opposite each other in negotiations. While it still exists in this format, globalization has led to its evolution; a craft that now includes the private and public sectors. One claim of the new diplomacy is that it represents people, not governments

On one side are the globalists, who have seized the moment and moved proactively to advance an agenda of strong international organizations and treaties. On the other side are those who continue to believe in the primacy of the nation-state system, with international law and organizations playing a secondary role where needed.
That would be the debate going on between idealists vs. realists.

However above all diplomacy must adapt itself to a new system with some new rules and some new players.


Political and Global issues are today not only discussed by the State or Diplomats, furthermore non-governmental and International Organizations and Movements are taking part in such conferences.
The awarness of human rights abuse, envoirnmental problems, health issues (HIV, AIDS, Famine), domestic violence ect., is now comprehensible through the work of non-governmental / Organizations & Movements. All these Issues mention but many more are existing and gradually more contemporary in Politic and Diplomacy. A new division in Diplomacy arose to solve hand in hand, with the ‘new players’ (non-governmental and International Organizations and Movements) successfully these problems.

That high level of awarness comes forward by the vast flow of information and technological advantage which extended the potentiallity of diplomats today. Successful development and resolutions will depend on the capacity for enhanced international exchanges of information and transparency, besides Organizations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) or World Health Organization (WHO).

With the next case I want to propose of how reports and information of HRM a non-governmental organizations can contribute to public awarness of what is happening and being negotiate between states. Certainly bringing such reports to the diplomate table also pressures diplomates to intense their action:

"For the last two years, the diplomacy surrounding a China resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission has been marked by a sorry lack of will and outright hypocrisy on the part of those countries that purport to defend human rights. The U.S. and E.U. member governments in particular have watched in near-silence as penalties for dissent in China steadily increased. The one tool that even U. S. and European critics of a vocal human rights policy were willing to support was a resolution in Geneva because it was by definition multilateral and less damaging, it was thought, to bilateral relations.

But by 1997, American and European leaders appeared ready to take any promise the Chinese government was willing to make as evidence of progress on human rights and as a pretext for backing out of a resolution. At the same time, it had ensured that no such resolution could ever pass by holding off so long on the lobbying needed to build support at the commission even as China was engaged in steady and effective lobbying of its own. The U.S. and Europe have sent a clear message that powerful countries will be allowed to abuse international standards with impunity. That signal is a disservice to the United Nations and to the cause of human rights."

Reference:
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/1997/03/01/chinese-diplomacy-western-hypocrisy-and-un-human-rights-commission