WikiLeaks and World Citizen Diplomacy
TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 3 Jan 2011
Rene Wadlow – TRANSCEND Media Service
WikiLeaks’ release of a large number of US diplomatic archives gives us a broad vision of the culture of US foreign policy policy-making. Such a vision could also be gained from reading the diplomatic archives as they are published after a “25 or 50 year rule”, but it is more fun to read material of a nearer time, especially if it is classified “Secret”. Were one to have similar access to the reports of diplomats of other countries, we would have some idea of the diplomatic political culture of those countries, but the process of information collection is broadly the same. Some diplomats have more writing talent than others and can “spice up” a report with interesting comments on leaders met, but such comments are of only marginal interest unless the person described has a direct role in foreign-policy making of the country.
Diplomatic reports are added to the reports of the intelligence services and to the analysis of open documentation such as newspapers, government reports, academic studies and the like. Most information that a Foreign Ministry has comes from open sources and is then compared to what additional information comes from diplomats and intelligence operatives, interviews with businessmen and travellers.
The three-step policy-making process of governments highlighted by the WikiLeaks documents can also be followed by what I call “ World Citizen Diplomacy” — that is, efforts by non-governmental organizations involved in conflict resolution efforts, often in conflicts that do not necessarily concern directly the State of which they are citizens.
The first step is the analysis of data collected. This is the most crucial phase. It is on the quality of analysis that the two following steps depend. As mentioned above, data on a country is collected primarily from open sources to which information and analysis is added provided from diplomats, intelligence agents and non-governmental contacts such as businessmen, religious workers etc. There is a need to understand the local forces at work as manifested in specific individuals and groups. There is a need to try to evaluate shorter and longer-range trends and then to situate the specific country situation into the broader regional and world context. For this reason, most Foreign Ministries are organized on a broad geographic basis — An African Division, Asian Division etc.
The second step is “proposal-making”. On the basis of analysis, a broad policy outline is developed which must then be formulated into “What is to be done next?” — that is specific steps to be carried out by specific persons in a specific institution such as the Mission to the UN, a visit to the Foreign Minister of the State involved, to lower ranking persons etc. A proposal must be drafted and a negotiation process worked out — what has been called “Getting to Yes”
The third step is the mobilization of resources needed to advance the policy proposals:
1) What can be done drawing only on one’s existing resources and contacts?
2) What can be gained by drawing on the resources of others but who will not play an active role in the implementation and follow-up?
3) What does one need from allies but who will then want a role in the policy making and a share of the benefits if the policy is successful?
Government policy makers have advantages that world citizen diplomats do not. Government civil servants are nearly always paid for the work they do. Governments do not need to depend on volunteers who may have or may not have funds to travel. Government agents at the upper level of decision making have usually been trained to carry out the work they are asked to do and have the advantage that other governments are used to working with government representatives. A US diplomat is rarely asked “Who sent you to ask this question?” while an NGO representative is often asked “Why are you involved in intra-government issues?”
Nevertheless, as we see from reading some of the WikiLeaks files, government policy making is not without difficulties and failures. Therefore world citizen diplomacy must learn from government policy-making procedures but must use them creatively, with more sympathy for the people of the country being analysed and with a broader “world vision” rather than the “national interest” focus of government policy makers.
2011 is likely to present world citizen diplomats with a number of difficult challenges, both those we carry forward from 2010 and those which will come more or less unexpected.
Non-government organizations do have vast resources, but they are not centralized or coordinated. It is not always easy to build meaningful coalitions. As with governments, one always needs to evaluate the time-effort needed to build a cooperative alliance against going alone under one’s own banner usually more quickly.
The same types of questions which face government policy makers face non-governmental groups, but non-governmental groups are more diverse and have different priorities and methods of work. A recent book by the English ecologist and political activist Paul Hawken Blessed unrest: how the largest movement in the world came into being and why no one saw it (New York: Viking; 2007) is a good overview of the world civil society.
Government diplomats have the advantage of working within a common political culture. At the United Nations, the representatives of States, even those strongly opposed to each other act in common ways, have certain common rules and mutual expectations. Partly this arises from the fact that they will have to see each other the next day and the day after that.
By and large, at the UN, these rules also apply in the way government diplomats work with non-governmental representatives. If I give a diplomat a text with proposals, I know that it will be read in Geneva and then sent on to the Foreign Ministry. I will usually be informed of the reaction in the Foreign Ministry to the proposals, even if only rather shortly. “Beijing is not happy” was the answer of a Chinese diplomat to my proposals on Tibet
World citizen diplomacy is still a new field. As with any new field, there is a process of presenting ideas, of drawing upon different fields of thought, of distilling experiences, then of a growing acceptance of a common core of ideas — a process described in Thomas Kuhn’s much quoted (if not always read) The Structure of Scientific Revolution
There is obviously a need to make the theoretical concepts of world citizen diplomacy operational — somehow linking the theoretical concepts to the step-by-step guide of those practicing in current conflict situations. Such efforts require cooperation between scholars, mediators and those who have been caught up in violence and are now able to reflect upon their experiences. Cooperation among NGOs is sometimes as difficult as among government representatives. There is competition for funds, name recognition and personal “ego trips”. But cooperation is growing and hopefully will grow more as we see new needs and new possibilities for action.
_______________________
Rene Wadlow, Representative to the United Nations, Geneva, Association of World Citizens.
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 3 Jan 2011.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: WikiLeaks and World Citizen Diplomacy, is included. Thank you.
If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.