Toward the end of the 20th century, the world had experienced some dramatic changes—and so did diplomacy. For one thing, the Cold War came to an abrupt closure. With the unanticipated collapse of the Soviet Empire came the end of what many considered to be a fairly stable bipolar world. The threat of war between the two blocks with competing ideologies—those that used to justify state control over diplomacy—simply ceased to exist. This gave room for national parliaments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and even individual activists to robustly project their voices into the echo chamber of international diplomacy.
For another, with the simultaneous advent of the digital age, people could now search and share information online faster than ever before and at near-zero cost. The issues people engaged with ranged widely from global poverty to ecological conservation to human rights. The little guy no longer had to rely on Big Brother to represent their every concern. Instead, the business of diplomacy was now wide open to, well, essentially everyone. And the core value that underwrote such change was the idea of participation. In some areas, non-state actors have proved to be more effective and efficient in tackling certain problems of transnational character—be it climate change, worldwide pollution, human trafficking, global poverty or even civil wars—about which states were previously disinclined to act upon.
Distinguished by the participation of non-state actors, the emergence of “new diplomacy” breaks away from its predecessor—the “old” or conventional tradition of diplomacy. In the latter, states could finally take center stage. Moreover, career diplomats, officially designated by the state, spearheaded diplomacy. Thus, in conceptualizing this notion of a “new diplomacy,” this novelty collided with and contradicted the old way of doing things. However, this was not to suggest that the differences necessarily resulted in conflicts between states and the non-state actors. Rather, the moral of the story was that differences ultimately produced positive synergy for the sake of diplomacy too. The new diplomacy, led by both state and non-state actors, was much better equipped to serve the needs of mankind and to cope with the world’s various problems.
To better understand this new brand of international politics, we need to be able to ask ourselves frankly the question that no one really bothered to put forward: just what is diplomacy? Diplomacy essentially translates to a series of engagements between interested parties set to resolve matters in a way that can benefit both ends of the aisle. States deploy career diplomats and foreign policy executives to deliver their messages to their foreign counterparts—maintaining relations in a way that enhances, hopefully, their own national interest. So what are some of the starkest and key differences between diplomacy of the past and this new brand that is emerging across the board?
First, the new diplomacy came about in the 21st century with the advent of democratic participation and the internet. In the 20th century, especially during the Cold War, states had a larger say in how international affairs fashioned shape of resolution especially due to the escalation of threat perception between the two ideological camps (or blocks) led by the United States and the Soviet Union, respectively. But at the onset of the subsequent century, states could no longer lurk under the shadow of a benevolent superpower. People started to demand for more. They demanded transparency, privacy, openness to their own leadership—mirroring the general improvement of their own wellbeing as well as knowledge of and access to politics.
Second, actors were massively diversified. In the older line of diplomacy, states were unitary actors. Diplomats and foreign policy executives had much tighter control over the source and dissemination of information. But with this new diplomacy, the game was changed forever. A state was now like a living organism—constantly responding to popular democratic mandates. Another important change was that there were other branches of state leadership that could place appropriate checks and balances on the executive power. In other words, not only career diplomats, officially serving the people through conventional organs of bureaucracy, but different agencies such as members of national parliaments could also take part in state diplomacy. In international politics, too, NGOs and individual activists, traditionally marginalized in the past, began to emerge on the scene to voice their positions on issues like wildlife protection where traditional agents of diplomacy were failing fantastically to cooperate with one another due to differences of national interests.
Third, and most importantly perhaps was the difference between old and the new diplomacy was the basic manner in which stakeholders engaged with common issues. Granted, there was no “single best way” to solve the world’s most pressing challenges. But independent projects by state and non-state actors were better capitalized upon in the era of new diplomacy. By leveling the playing field for both ends of the agency aisle, the equalization had the effect of allowing smaller and medium-sized players to approach timeless questions of the global conundrum from different angles and with fresh perspectives. NGOs, for instance, could now leverage their grassroots organizations to increase awareness of environmental issues to demand substantive changes and hold great powers of international politics to account. States could now work to establish a balanced framework for sustainable solutions in the long run by utilizing civilian and public human resources.
The era of new diplomacy is marked by an extension of the role of the executive branch to that of the legislative and to a multiplicity of non-state actors. At the heart of new diplomacy, there is a binary expansion of the scope of politics both within and outside of traditional borders. Today the idea of participation, not only in domestic politics but also in international politics, matters. By allowing states and auxiliary agents to operate in their own areas of specialization—and still contribute to international politics—has completely changed the diplomatic landscape. Challenges of the 21st century are more diverse than ever before. Pollution now crosses borders, and the rising sea levels require the helping hand of more than just the executive powers of the wealthiest, most powerful countries on earth. Cyberterrorism and historical (as well as territorial) disputes are a pain in the ass for many countries. The idea of new diplomacy—and that of parliamentary diplomacy also—is mankind’s great leap forward and a step in the right direction.
Of course, there is danger lurking underneath every ideal. Nonetheless, the true value of parliamentary or any other forms of new diplomacy for that matter is not in the outcomes they produce but the influence they exert upon the convention of diplomatic operations. New diplomacy may not guarantee an immediate and effective resolution to all the issues that hitherto vex the international community. But it gives us hard currency to deal with problems in a new world where different perspectives created from the synergy of information, technology, human resources of both executive and non-executive players can make a difference, and hopefully, for the better.
Ethan Junghyun Noh is a former associate business analyst at Aero-K, an LCC start-up based in Korea. Expected to graduate from Yonsei University with a degree in Political Science and International Relations, Ethan enjoys swimming, contemplating new business models and perusing books on German and French history. He can be reached at noh.junghyun.93@gmail.com |
