Conference at the Diplomatic Academy, Vienna, 28 Jan 2011
The Evolution of Diplomacy
Since the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Reopening of the Diplomatic Academy by Bruno Kreisky in 1964
I was invited to a discussion on ‘Diplomacy in the Global Context’, one of three panels that was convened at the above conference. The event was attended by about 220, including some 35 of the ambassadors based in Vienna. Points given below are perhaps an incomplete and probably flawed summary.
Diplomacy in European Governance
It was generally felt that the European publics were undergoing a process of ‘re-nationalization’ and there was an unwillingness to give more powers to the EU. Stefan Lehne, DG for Political Affairs at the Austrian Ministry for European and International Affairs, argued that the new EU ‘Action Service’ is getting into its stride and that depending on the personality of the EU envoy, the EU mission will begin to play a more European role, with better leadership to the group in each capital, compared with the earlier period when the country holding the rotating 6-month presidency led the group. At the same time, foreign policy is seen at the heart of sovereignty, and even under the Lisbon Treaty, national foreign policy has primacy. For the smaller European states, convergence on most foreign policy issues is easier. On the plus side, a kind of socialization process is underway, and capitals now first consider what Brussels will do. Today, the 27 EU states have 2130 overseas embassies and 930 consulates. Gradually, one will see joint European representation in countries where EU members do not have strong stakes, while embassies defending particular bilateral interests will also remain. [Already, consular services are available to EU citizens from consulates of other countries, if they do not have their own representation at particular places; one does not know how well that works in practice.]
Hella Pick, former diplomatic editor of The Guardian and now a program director with the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, London was expectedly skeptical about EU’s common foreign policy. She felt that Katherine Ashton, as the High Representative of the EU on foreign affairs was perhaps not the right choice. In the UK the Foreign Office was pro-EU, but that was not the position taken by successive governments. UK tends to favor bilateral diplomacy. Her Institute had tried hard to organize closed-door discussions over a period of two years to work on a common European policy towards Russia, but that had not worked out. Now the focus was on China, as Beijing wanted to talk to an authoritative European group, but a common response was not forthcoming.
Marc Perrin de Brichambaut, Secretary General of OSCE was critical of the way Europe functioned and spoke of a need for strategic vision. The US was more outspoken on promotion of values than was the EU. He also felt that consensus based organizations, such as OECE do work, even while building consensus took a great deal of effort and professionalism.
Alain Deletroz, vice president of the International Crisis Group, was also critical of the EU’s external governance. It was not clear if the EU Action Service would not become the 28th diplomatic service of the EU, with the other 27 working against it. Article 16 of the Maastricht Treaty asked EU states to take common positions at international conferences, but for the large countries this did not happen. He lamented the fact that EU capitals did not permit their diplomats to speak with Hammas and Hezboullah, but the International Crisis Group was able to do this.
Global Context
Thomas Nowotny, former Austrian diplomat and private secretary to Kreisky felt that diplomacy was shaped by the society in which it functions. Contrary to the provisions of Article 41 of the 1961 Vienna Convention we now interfere continually in one another’s internal affairs; the US banking failure of 2008, which triggered a global recession was also a form of interference. The key challenge today was to manage a ‘complexity of interdependence’. Major powers wanted weak candidates as heads of international organizations – should not small states jointly work against this?
In my remarks I touched on the increasingly inter-connected and demanding nature of diplomacy. Continuous learning was required for this profession, in contrast to past heavy emphasis on entry-level training in some countries. In the services that permitted mid-career level entry, a new challenge was to blend these two streams of officials. Promotion methods were becoming increasingly demanding, and the UK (with its very unusual ‘Assessment and Development Centers’ which combined training with promotion selection), Singapore and China were charting interesting new courses. Selection of ambassadors was another problem issue in some countries, especially in Africa and Latin America with its preference for political appointments. Diplomacy methods were also under evolution and some small countries had become fast learners.
George Schusterschitz, Director for Public International Law at the Austrian MFA characterized the Vienna Convention as unique in terms of: its reciprocity, which went together with immunities; its modesty, in that it had not attempted to reinvent customary law; and its flexibility, which was now being challenged by disputes over taxation liability, where the criterion was that diplomats had to pay for ‘services rendered’, but definition was problematic.
New Actors in Foreign Relations
This discussion was primarily on the role of NGOs and other non-state actors in international affairs. Marianne Schulze who had worked on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in which negotiations were conducted with active participation of non-state actors. 450 NGOs had actively participated over a period of four-and-half years, and many had been given the floor at the formal sessions. Other features of the new process were transparency, with the new media given access, plus accountability. NGOs were now becoming more strategic in their thinking.
Other points made: If NGOs wanted to have impact, they needed good connections with foreign ministries and with line ministries (Oxfam India had organized a discussion at IIC some months back on this theme); financing of NGOs is sometimes used against them, as Putin had done in Russia some years back when he attacked foreign NGOs (though a counter-point to this might be that NGO financing is indeed a real issue, in that they are used by some Western countries to engage in activities that are not welcome to the receiving states); to bring stability to Afghanistan, governments would have to use NGOs.
Overall, the conference was interesting in the range of issues it threw up, even while it seemed Europe-centric.
Kishan S Rana
9 February 2011
