"Trade has long followed the flag, but in recent years the flag has followed trade" Sanjaya Baru

“The Seattle Symposium on International Trade Issues in the First Decades of the Next Century was held at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center in Seattle, Washington on 29 November 1999, on the eve of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Third Ministerial Conference, which is to take place from 30 November-3December. Approximately 1500 delegates, comprising representatives of WTO Member States, intergovernmental organizations(IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and journalists, participated in the Symposium, which was webcast live. He noted that it was Clinton who proposed that the WTO host a day for NGOs so that they would have an opportunity to voice their concerns and that the Symposium represented the first time in 50 years that NGOs have been given such a voice” (WTO).

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that descended on Seattle were a model of everything the trade negotiators were not. They were well organised. They built unusual coalitions (environmentalists and labour groups). They had a clear agenda to restrain the talks and outcomes. And they were masterly users of the media.
The combat of Seattle is only the latest and most evident recent NGO success. Yet the breaking point was the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, when the NGOs provoked enough public pressure to push through agreements on controlling greenhouse gases. In 1994, protesters conquered the World Bank's anniversary conference with a "Fifty Years is Enough" campaign, and forced a rethink of the Bank's goals and methods. In 1998, an ad hoc coalition of consumer-rights activists and environmentalists helped to descend the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, a draft treaty to complement rules on foreign investment under the support of the OECD. In the past couple of years an additional global coalition of
NGOs, Jubilee 2000, has pushed effectively for a dramatic reduction in the debts of the poorest countries. However, NGO’s agendas are not only limited to economic issues. One major success in the 1990s was the campaign to outlaw landmines, where hundreds of NGOs, in concert with the Canadian government, pushed through a ban in a year. Nor are NGO’s narrowed to government agendas. Nike has been targeted for poor labour conditions in its overseas factories from NGO organizations.


Interestingly, it must be addressed that NGO’s likewise influencing public opinions with an immense impact. To achieve one’s goal, be it National interest or NGO’s targets, the attractiveness and constitute character of a state or NGO’s philosophies for the use of ‘soft power’, to pursue each interests are an ever increasing diplomatic streak. The terminology ‘soft power’ was invented by Joseph Nye and is as follow defined: ‘Soft power rest on some shared values and soft power means getting others to want the same outcomes you want’ (J. Nye, 2004: 111). Let me explain what I mean: The Fairtrade organization set up 1992 by five leading international development NGO’s, with his mission to improve the lives of poor and marginalised farmers and workers in developing countries by promoting fairer forms of trade, achieved

“the growth in public awareness of Fairtrade it has enabled the foundation to take the complex, distant issue of trade, development and poverty
outside of their usual audience into the mass market. It is widely recognised that one of the most effective ways of eradicating poverty in developing countries is to establish successful and sustainable economic activity. Fairtrade has proved to be an extremely successful model of how people-centred development can effectively reduce poverty and improve livelihoods”. (Fairtrade, 2007

As we discovered earlier NGO’s shared their times of success on trade and environmental solutions. The impact of NGO’s will further succeed and growing on influence, and therefore I believe it deserves the wholehearted Government & Public support.

References:

• Nye Joseph S. (2004), Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics , New York: Public Affairs


WTO
• http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min99_e/english/ngo_e/sdvol34no1.pdf



• Sanjaya Baru http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue/2010/09/10/Comment/17450



• Fairtrade http://www.blogger.com/•http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/f/fairtrade_foundation_idc_submission.pdf
  

My understanding of diplomacy

My 'first imporession' of the subject of diplomacy was reduced to the negotiation process itself. My idea of diplomatic relation were concentrated on the talks between actors and agents, not necessarily state officials, but nevertheless between those who were present at the meetings. I also thought of diplomatic relations a something positive and democratic, like invisible bonds betsween countries, organizations and big businesses, focused on talk, consensus and agreements rather than violence, threath and coercion.

My knowledge have developed in terms of widening the concept of diplomacy. I now know about the importance of public diplomacy, and the influence of people and civil society movements. Together with NGOs and other non-state actors, public pressure can influence the outcomes, and processes of negotiations and turn the position of states, international organizations and the media. I know that the use of soft power is extensive when it comes to the new, modern conduct of diplomacy, and is not limited to any physical meetings or debates. Soft power is exercized on many levels and in different dimensions, simultaneously, many times unnoticed, but never without a source.

I know understand that diplomacy, as many almost all other relations between humans, objects, nature, animals and beings is about power. How we interpret the meaning and effects of diplomatic relations depends on how we understand the concept of power. Power is as abstract as the diplomatic process itself. I believe new diplomacy should be understood as the relationship between agents and actors rather than outcomes of negotiations. In my opinion, we can not evaluate how succesful negotiations have been by only consider particular outcomes. Talks are going on constantly, everywhere and on all levels of governance, and interconnects with other processes of political power, flows of information, advanced communcation technology, globalization, mass-consumption, ideological tendencies, grassroot movements and the creation of plural identities. In a post-modern cosmopolitan society, the processes of diplomacy becomes more complex and integrated. The concept of new diplomacy is marked out by less secrecy, and value is put on having open, transparent and accountable negotiations. The narratives and rhetoric about open diplomacy is that is is th building blocks for global democracy. Nevertheless, some critique should be pointed at the conduct of diplomacy. Not only are negotiations controlled, and agendas are set, by those in power, which is the rich countries in the west and big multinational cooperations. Poor nations, NGOs with few resources and people from the global south still have a weaker voice and are excluded from the global space of diplomacy. Therefore, the grassroot movements and NGOs located in the South are very important in increasing equal participation, representation and influence.

My idea of diplomacy is, after taking this module, more about integration of interests, influence, representation, relationships and ongoing process than about the actual talks and the formal participants. I now understand that multiple components are interacting in creating the diplomatic space and that the functions, procedures and outcomes are dependant upon power relations, not always visable for the public eye. And importantly, I understand that citizen participation is more relevant in understanding diplomatic processes than it is stated in the traditional literature about diplomacy.

Environmental Diplomacy and the Impact of NGOs

NGOs have had significant influence in international negotiations, exercising pressure on politicians and leaders and creating public awareness through public diplomacy. As for example, many NGOs use intersessional meetings to set the agenda of international environmental negotiations, often seen at large climate summit meetings, such as Klimaforum09 during COP15 in Copenhagen, also called People's Climate Movement, a space for the civil society to gather, share information, discuss and debate, share ideas and come up with alternative solutions. It was a place where people and organizations could meet and inspire each others to participate in the diplomatic process through taking action in terms of demonstrating, protesting, signing petitions and involve in different projects.

Betsill and Corell argue that non-state actors commonly influence the process of diplomatic relations rather than the outcomes. They have the capabilities to influence the outcomes in terms of providing education and information to delegates from particular countries, to help them pressure for certain outcomes. If they get themselves involved at an early stage, it is more likely they will effect the process of negotiations. Non-state actor involvement in environmental negotiations should rather be seen as a relationship between actors such states, organizations and representatives from different levels of government, and not defined by the outcomes its involvement achieves. Non-state actors can without any formal status highlight certain issues and create a public awareness, and thus put pressure on the process to be transparent, accountable and fair.

NGOs in particular should be seen as influential in global environmental matters. This is because they usually enjoy a good reputation in terms of high moral status. They tend to have resources and scientific legitimacy to be considered as truthful and reliable. They can therefore shape the agenda at negotiations and provide liable information to the public, under the same conditions as the scientific community.

It is very important to mention that NGOs are, to a higher degree than they use to be, recognized by states as actors in global governance. This is a proof of that states understand the importance of cooperation with non-state actors in tackling the problems the world faces.

During COP15, the buildings where the negotiations were going on were highly restricted and closed up from the public. Klimaforum09 provided a space that connected the people with the true issues and gave them an opportunity to express themselves and their concerns not restrained by government designed programmes for citizen participation. People were given the opportunity to search for alternative answers to their concerns and discuss with others. According to the Evaluation Report of Klimaforum09, the event also functioned as a logistic partner to the COP15 conference, as a summit point for people, grass root movements and NGOs from different parts of the world with different interests and concerns. People from the global south were present at the forum, sharing experiences of how it is to live under difficult circumstances caused by the climate change. All movie screenings, exhibitions, lectures, workshops and debates were free as a democratic opportunity to learn and share knowledge and experience. A Declaration was written and signed by about 500 of the participating organizations.

I believe non-state actors, in terms of civil society movements and NGOs, play an important part in environmental negotiations. Even if they do not directly effect the outcomes of the negotiations, they provides a sense of democratic organization and opportunities for people to get inspired, and inspire others, without any money or resources and without any power. Still, the event became recognized as a democratic and open arena of influence. It is very important to have a place where everyone is welcome to take a part, not least because everyone is affected by the environmental change.

Links/Sources:

http://09.klimaforum.org/09/evaluation-report

Betsill, Michele M. and Elisabeth Corell (2008). NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://books.google.com/books?id=cuVt2ZNE-8UC&printsec=frontcover&hl=sv#v=onepage&q&f=false

Is there a need for Public Diplomacy?

Diplomacy can be said to in a constant state of evolution or re-invention, while in a few decades ago diplomacy was about state to state affairs; today we talk about new forms of diplomacy such as public diplomacy. Public Diplomacy on its own can very controversial since its essential about public opinion; there are many questions about its relevance which I will try to address in this blog.

Joseph Nye talks about the importance of foreign opinion to the US Foreign Policy, he says that ‘good reputation fosters goodwill which therefore brings acceptance for unpopular ventures’. An example of this can be seen with the happening of 9/11 in USA soil where the US not only got the sympathy of the ‘world population’ but also the support for the Afghanistan invasion. But in my reality it wasn’t the support of ‘the world’ that lead USA to Afghanistan but their own will, like in the case of the Iraq invasion in 2003. Where America invaded the country against the will of many people and states and even without the support or resolution from the United Nations.

While foreign opinion may facilitate ‘unpopular ventures’ it has no power or influence in today’s world. Not even with the improvements in technology and the easy access that people to information matters; because we simply not aware of all the facts that are considered behind certain decisions taken by diplomats or state representatives. The media has it’s own agenda their main goal is to make profit like any business, therefore a selection of new and how this new are delivered is required; which consequently can have many different meanings. Also the diversion of public opinion is too much to be taken into consideration. Public Diplomacy for me in a way it's like democracy that we have today, a coercive tool way to make the uneducated masses happy, by making them think that they can make a difference if their voices are heard.