Introduction
The debate on diplomacy as a profession has in the past attracted a heated debate with serious disagreements relating to different issues taking center stage. To begin with doubts have been cast over the state of diplomacy as a profession (Lee, 2004). According to Lee (2004) diplomacy today is a “profession in perilâ€. As an area of academic inquiry, diplomacy is often associated with incoherent theoretical frameworks and models. The centrality of the sovereign state on which the diplomacy profession was traditionally founded is being challenged by the growing influence, assertiveness, relevance, and soft power of non-state actors. This has led to the emergence of the concept of “citizen diplomacy†that is made possible by the emergence of social media, mass communication, and social networking.
As the disagreements rage on, the face of diplomacy has in recent times been undergoing numerous changes. Non-state actors such as non-governmental organizations have started playing an increasingly critical role in diplomatic activities. Therefore, a crucial question for diplomatic scholars and actors in international politics is on whether diplomacy should be left to diplomats. The thesis of this paper is that diplomacy should not be left to diplomats; non-diplomats should also be allowed to play a crucial role in shaping international policies through non-state avenues such as social media. To explore this subject analytically, this paper examines the traditional conceptions of diplomacy and contrasts them with the emerging revolution of “new diplomacy†that is characterized by the entry of non-state actors and the growing relevance of social media. In this analysis, examples from current affairs are provided.
Traditional conceptions of diplomacy
Traditionally, diplomacy was based on the concept of the state as defined by the treaty of Westphalia (Kelly, 2010). In statist diplomacy, a lot of emphasis has been on the relationship between the state and the government (Hoffman, 2003). Diplomats have traditionally been appointed through political processes. All along, it has been extremely difficult to divorce diplomacy from the idea of the sovereign states. It has become extremely difficult for one to conceptualize the role of diplomats in international relations without think about the respective sovereign states whose national interests they represent.
In the traditional sense, diplomats are expected to represent the interests of sovereign states simply because states are the only primary legitimate carriers of force and authority. However, in the 21st century, new global challenges such as poverty, international terrorism, organized crime, and climate change have emerged. These challenges call for more than the traditional practice where countries come together to discuss possible solutions. They call for the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as well as international NGOs (INGOs).
In terms of the theory of diplomacy, several claims of incoherence have been made (Gilboa, 2008; Hoffman, 2003). This creates the impression that diplomacy as a discipline is still in its formative years. The alternative argument in this case would be that diplomacy does not qualify to be viewed as a profession. This view is likely to become entrenched if non-state actors continue taking over assignments that were traditionally the reserve of career diplomats.
…
References
Bátora, J (2005), ‘Does the European Union transform the institution of diplomacy?’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 44-66.
Kelley, J (2010), ‘The New Diplomacy: Evolution of a Revolution’, Diplomacy & Statecraft, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 286-305.
Langhorne, R (2005), ‘The Diplomacy of Non-State Actors’, Diplomacy & Statecraft, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 331-339.
Lee, D (2004), ‘The Growing Influence of Business in U.K. Diplomacy’, International Studies Perspectives, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 50–54.