Concept of Representation in Diplomacy - Essay Example

Discuss the Concept of Representation in Diplomacy Representation is an integral part of the theory and practice of modern diplomacy. That notwithstanding, the concept of representation is not always easy to articulate given that it has so many interpretations as well as varying methods of implementation by different countries. In theory, representation is a complex concept to define, meanwhile in practice; there are many questions that come to mind whenever the word is mentioned. Some of these questions include what is being represented, and to whom But in theory and practice, representation has a symbolic dimension and can act as a cornerstone to the understanding of diplomacy as an activity in the day to day political, social, economical, and cultural interaction of groups and nations. In the past, literature in the field of diplomacy has defined representation in various ways, some of which are even conflicting when it comes to its role in international relations in contemporary and future society. However, the importance of diplomatic representation in diplomacy would depend on the meaning attributed to this concept. As a result, the relevance of diplomatic representation has become the centre of a major debate about the importance of diplomacy in a fast evolving world. It's hard for us to picture what ancient diplomacy was all about. However, the diplomacy in the Greek and Roman civilizations was intermittent and generated no permanent in situations.1 (Hamilton and Langhorne 995: 7) "In order to dispense with diplomacy, that is with the methods used by independent governments to work out their own relations with one another, mankind would either have to let independent governments exist without the diplomatic dialogue, or else dispense with independence and 'sovereign states' altogether. They would not be able to conclude peace settlements or treaties with their neighbours, for such settlements are the essence of diplomacy. Each would have to stand alone against a more powerful and aggressive neighbour. They would not be able to get into touch with one another, to band together or form leagues and alliances for mutual protection."2 (Watson 1991:22) THE EVOLUTION OF REPRESENTATION IN DIPLOMACY In the ancient days, representation was not so strong in diplomacy. Niccolo Machiavelli was a great ruler of his time. He is quite famous for his political theory. However, little is known about his reflections on diplomacy. Machiavelli emerged when diplomacy just began its transformation that saw the creation of resident embassies. (Berridge 2001:7-8) In order for us to assess the role of diplomacy in today's world, some scholars argue that residential bilateral diplomacy is gradually becoming irrelevant. However, other scholars continue to uphold this type of diplomacy. These debates have been initiated by the changes that are occurring in the international system. Some scholars believe that the practice of diplomacy needs to adjust in order to adapt to the new environment, meanwhile others feel that the traditional methods still the answer the question today. (Berridge 2001:136) In the past, debates over globalization and global governance claimed that the role of governments decline over the years. But that hasn't happened. We are now witnessing different trends that prove this argument wrong. There is still much government participation in the ways in which government agencies operate. The structures of contemporary diplomacy now operate in such a way that they do not only go out to articulate the international goals and policies of the state. Today's diplomatic structures also tend to represent components of the increasing network of global governance. The transformations in the structures of diplomacy strongly depict the ways in which governments are responding to the changes in the international system. (Manojlovic and Thorheim 2007:12) Changes in the practice of diplomacy began with the introduction of the principle of self-determination, and then later proceeded into the era of popular representation. This notion upholds the view that governments act in the name of its people, not of the ruler or of a particular class. "More than anything it was the soberly dressed person of Benjamin Franklin, the representative of the American Congress in Paris, with his round hat and awkward manners, which epitomized the demise of the old diplomacy." (Ramsey 2006:273) One way to take note of such changes is by examining the changes of interaction between national diplomatic systems and the global diplomatic network. In order to analyze the way in which diplomatic representation is adapting to the evolving international system there is need to observe the transformation that is currently taking place when it comes to diplomatic access and representation. Access has to do with the goals and policies of representation. This includes access to the corridors of power and influence. On the other hand, representation is associated with the operations and activities of the representation. The transformation in most diplomatic representation is marked by dialogue between the two concerns listed above. (Ramsey 2006:273) In the past, access and presence have been interwoven. The reason for this is because in order to achieve access, there has always been need for physical presence. But as the relation between national diplomatic systems and the global diplomatic network continue to change, many have begun questioning the link between access and presence. But this does not in anyway render them meaningless. This scenario is typical within the institutionalized European Union (EU) environment. The role of ministries of foreign affairs, bilateral representations and missions to developing countries are being re-examined within the EU. (Manojlovic and Thorheim 2007:16) As earlier mentioned, representation can be understood to mean different things for different countries. Today, one of the major functions of representation is advocacy. The role of diplomats as advocates is crucial in the practice of contemporary diplomacy. These changes are indicators that nations are adapting to the global diplomatic network through a revision of the role of national diplomatic systems. The major link between both systems is dialogue. For many governments, changes in the global community are pushing them to ask two questions. How should diplomacy be represented today And what should be the role of diplomatic representation It is important to note that many of the changes that have been witnessed in the way diplomacy is presented have been gradual. Secondly, it appears that, most of these changes have been prompted by globalization. (Anderson 1993: 138) Global developments, which have been prompted by globalization, cannot downplay the role of representation. Instead, representation has become very crucial in the practice of contemporary diplomacy. There is even more need for representation across the various layers of the polycentric and culturally diverse world. This is a major challenge to national diplomatic systems and the global diplomatic network environment. The emergence of new actors capable of performing on the international scene such as Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), international organization and businesses have redefined the ways in which diplomacy can be conducted as well as where representation is necessary. In West Africa, for instance, the United Nations is working with the diplomatic representations of the influential nations to define a diplomatic policy aimed at resolving conflicts in that part of the world. NGO are increasing teaming up with their diplomatic representations for support. (Larosch, 2007:29) As a result, identifying nodes of influence and the need for access have created further challenges. There are two types of nodes of influence within the global diplomatic network. There is the geographical, which includes powerful capitals such as Washington, London, Moscow etc. Then there is also the functional which include international agencies. (Hamilton and Langhorne 1999:136) The multiplicity of functional nodes of influence poses a major challenge to national diplomatic systems when it comes to coordination and representation. That is because it requires government ministries of foreign affairs to constantly review their national diplomatic systems to adapt to the fast changing global system. Such changes have led to the birth of smaller departments and ministries within the country that are able to act on the international scene given their functional focus. Many national NGOs are increasingly taking up roles in developing countries, offering aid and other assistance overseas. Some act as support staff in conflict torn regions abroad. There's now much emphasis on the role of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) as coordinators or integrators in the field of foreign policy-making and conduct. Contemporary representation in diplomacy has been expanded. That is because it includes non-MFA departments. More recently, there has been rivalry between MFAs and other government institution that operate overseas. More often today, MFAs are required to listen to other departments and even consult some before formulating foreign policies. That is because some government agencies, especially in the fields of health and education increasingly have functions in other countries. This feature has become more visible today than it was in the past. Other non-MFA institutions that have developed a crucial role in diplomacy are businesses. Many European State owned companies are beginning expand their operations overseas. Many of them report back home and act as informal representation abroad. The role of diplomatic representation and diplomats is changing as the concept of state sovereignty is changing and adapting to the new world order. The old notion of diplomacy and diplomatic representation being just "a link" between two governments is gradually becoming an outdated idea. There is much more to just linking two governments in contemporary diplomacy. (Hamilton and Langhorne 1999:136)There are new stakeholders with new agenda on the diplomatic stage. American President Kissinger's diplomacy, for instance, was based on cultural and economic exchanges between the U.S. and other big nations like China. (Berridge ets als. 2001:176) The creation of multiple partnerships between civil societies, businesses and private actors on one hand, and national diplomatic systems is the new order. That has made the nature of representation more diffuse today. National diplomatic systems and the global diplomatic network now demand responses from each other. The advent of new communication technologies has led to an improved international communication system. Domestic and international environment have become more connected through a global information network and real-time dissemination of news and messages thanks to the advent of the media and the internet. (Manojlovic and Thorheim 2007:11-13) Diplomatic representations are now able to link up groups of people abroad with their counterparts at home through highly technological channels such as teleconferences. These changes are driving the mankind into a new era that will see even more changes in the role of diplomacy and representation in the future. There are three possible scenarios: Improved communication might lead to organized pluralism and global solidarity. The differences between the arenas of international system would be well defined. Another possibility is that it might lead to polycentrism, with a world full of networks, actors and decision makers. And the final possibility might be political dispensation, in which diplomats would play a role in the creation of a new world order. However, it might still be early to make any judgment. Even though some scholars say that the three scenarios are already visible today. But the one thing that is already clear is that there is the emergence of new practices, actors and issues. These changes are affecting the face of the international system and leading to changes. (Manojlovic and Thorheim 2007:14) Amongst the changes that are taking place in diplomatic representations are the functions of the consular officer. Four recent changes in the global system are seriously affecting the job of the consular officer. The first one of them is the fact that more people are travelling around the world for different purposes. Secondly, the international media tend to criticize the performance of governments at home and abroad during crises period. Non-MFA actors on the international scene have surrounded the state making diplomacy a more complex and multilateral issue than it was in the past. There is currently more integration of the EU member state on external affairs. For example the EU now speaks the same voice in most issues of international concern. (Manojlovic and Thorheim 2007:15) The changes mentioned above has led to the redefining of the way consular affairs are conducted in some representations. It has now gone a long way to highlight the importance of consular affairs at diplomatic representations, a section that was not so important in the past. More people travelling about means there are more people demanding for travel documents to foreigners travelling home, as well as, there are also more home nationals abroad, requiring support services from the representation. A handful of MFAs are reluctant to accept and adapt to this change, a situation that might lead to embarrassment, long queues and other unforeseen circumstances in the future. As result of the above situation, MFAs should note only focus on this defensive motivation when adapting to these changes. They need to provide efficient consular services given that such improved services would go a long way to boost their reputation and credibility in the eyes of foreigners and nationals they serve. In this regard therefore, an improvement in the quality of services can also be considered as another way to lobby for public support for the foreign policies of the MFA. The major function of the consular office has been to promote the interests of its domestic citizens abroad. Meanwhile this duty has almost remained the same since its origins in the Greco-Roman world; this service has successfully imposed itself as an important department within diplomatic representations today thanks to the changes that are taking place in the international diplomatic network. Today's society has come to realize that there is a need for a total diplomacy, and the 20th century has totally changed the face of diplomacy. (Hamilton and Langhorne 1995:183) The consulate used to be the main representative body of one principality on the territory of another, and its affairs included the handling of economic, political and legal issues, mostly on behalf of elite segments of its domestic society. However, the emergence of the sovereign state in the seventeenth century limited the consulate's authority, and the handling of high-stake political and economic affairs between states became increasingly institutionalized and was transferred to more professionally trained diplomats and ambassadors. Furthermore, as travelling became less concerned with trade and politics, this impacted on the activities of diplomats in charge with consular services. Their services were now opened to the general public and not with trade and politics. These new changes let to a reduction in the activities of consular service. As earlier mention, recent developments in politics have attracted a lot of attention on what is expected from the consular service in terms of the standard of the services which they offer to the public. The fact that the consular service now has to serve the general public does not in any way mean the quality of their service should decline. Moreover, recent trends in democracy especially with the issue of accountability as a standard principle in democratic, governments are under political pressure to ensure political accountability. This has helped to see that services offered at the consular level are at the best in terms of efficiency. (Manojlovic and Thorheim, 2007: 16) This situation has made difficult for Ministries of Foreign Affairs (MFAs) to keep their activities out of the reach of public. Also international migration has become a common phenomenon in recent times thereby making the consular service again to be more concern with the general public rather than the obscure affairs of plenipotentiaries. A case in point was after the tsunami disaster that hit almost all of South East Asia towards the end of 2004. This incident exposed many ministries of foreign affairs who were publicly criticized for not paying enough attention to the disaster. Although the disaster occurred in South East Asia, Europeans were also affected and most these Europeans were tourist. With this trend of events the surviving members of these families became open to the public. This was so because the public had been following almost every development that took place during this disaster. This affected consular affairs in one way or the other as the public could now probe into the ways consular were managed regarding this crisis thus producing an impact on the general image of MFAs especially in the eyes of the public. (Hu 2007: 23) However it is worthy to understand that consular offices are beginning to win back the influence they had when it came to high level politics with security and border control issues standing as their principal areas of concern. The fact that international migration has become so rampant, it is imperative to control those migrating at least for the purpose of states security but this has become very complex to effectively handle. Consular offices are beginning to get back the role they played in high level politics with issues about security and border control as their major centre on activities. The understanding is that as the rate of international migration becomes more rampant, so too is it considered imperative to check these movements at least for the purpose of state security. However, this has been proving difficult especially when crimes like child abduction and trafficking, drug trafficking have become so rampant as well as incidents violent attacks masterminded by foreigners on civilians occupy the stage. It has does been widely accepted that these issues could better be handled at the level of the consular service. By this it becomes possible to nib some these crimes from their buds rather than completely relying on conferences, summits and diplomatic negotiations to solve these issues. Also, looking at it from the pragmatic level, it is realized that consular service outside issuing visas also stand a better chance to check the activities of their own country men and women through their representative offices stationed in a number of countries abroad. Success at this level is pushing many countries to seek means of increasing their level of international cooperation through these consular offices. The focus here has been on the improvement of exchange of information with the hope that it could later act the basis to have a real understanding of cross border movements throughout the world. This situation has produced yet another change that has played a dominant role in bringing back the activities of the consular office to the public. This basically has been the advent of the European Union which has led to increase level of European integration. What makes the situation a little complex is the fact that, the foreign affairs department of EU member states remain independent when it comes to matters concerning the communitarian policy making aspect of this organization. However, a more integrated manner to look at issues in this regards is gradually gaining grounds through the acceptance by member states to have a common Foreign Security Policy in 2002 and through a constitutional Treaty even though this has not yet been ratified. The meaning underlying these changes has been the need by the EU members to turn the organization into a strong a united actor in the international political scene. This situation is envisaged to strengthen the EU member state even though it has it implications. For instance, members of EU stand to lose the independence they once had over consular issues. This particular issue was born of the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which led to the understanding that all Europeans are one. Since then EU member state affairs have been harmonized hence jointly coordinated. This implies that EU citizen in foreign countries can seek assistance and protection from any EU member consular in any country where his country does not have a consular office. The creation of a virtually border-free zone within the Union through the Schengen agreement also means that issuing visas to third country citizens is no longer based on reciprocal agreements between two states, but rather on a common European approach to external countries. Such changes have resulted to an increase in the challenges of the EU countries' consular offices as well as the manner in which diplomatic relation are handled in general. The implication here is that it has become likely that the number of cases that require assistance from member council offices is bound to rise as well as the need to adopt new common rules and protocols to provide working guideline in this regards. (Hu 2007: 85) Another challenge and which even appears more complex could be to change the mindset of officials responsible for dealing with these cases. This brings to light the issue that consular offices must understand that they will now be serving other citizens and not just their national. If this must go successfully, it therefore means trust and unity which is not yet so common among EU members have to be the basis for the consular offices and those in need of their services. It is only when this is achieved that one would be able to see the benefits of harmonizing the manner in which consular offices manage their activities. What has also inspired the need for a joint approach within the EU is the imbalance in the distribution of immigrants within member states. The richer the country means the more new citizens seek means to install themselves to reap the benefits of high wages. This situation is pushing the richer countries to worry more about the increase rate of migration flow while poorer countries like some those in Eastern Europe do not look at it in this light since they are the beneficiaries. Moreover, the rate at which visas may be issued by Eastern European countries is may not be the same as compared to Western Europe. The reason for this is that, with most Eastern European country aware that immigrants may just be using their countries as stop over in to the west, they may not be as stern as the Western European countries. This situation has created a lot of differences between champions of a pragmatic approach to cooperation within the EU and those who think it is better to have a single consular service to cater for all EU citizens throughout the world. If a single consular service for all European citizens goes operational, it means there will be better services provided at the consular offices, the visa policy will be better coordinated, improved external border management and fewer incidents of inefficient and costly overlapping. Out side the EU, other countries also stand to achieve some amount of benefit if the EU harmonizes its consular offices. (Hu 2007: 85) For instance, MFAs based on the understanding that citizens are getting more difficult to handle and more complex situations come up every day would find it easy to avoid basing their consular affair on bilateral arrangement. A carefully harmonized form of operation means better cooperation with international institutions, nongovernmental organizations, travel agencies, insurance companies, mass media etc. In this regards, MFAs will stand an excellent chance to provide better services to both domestic and foreign citizens. More importantly, the chances of avoiding some disturbing incidents would also magnify with the creation of a number of points of contact around the world, broadly inform citizens about their rights and responsibilities, MFAs increasing the visibility of their affairs in general and consular offices made better prepared for emergency situations by having better networks in their receiving countries. As mentioned above, if all these are put in place it is not only going to be the public that will be at the receiving end in terms of benefiting from these developments for the MFAs also stand to benefit. Bases on these, it become likely that consular offices continue to project themselves as the link between the public and diplomacy, more important at this crucial moment where diplomats and academics to fit it to this new reality. (Rodgers 1998: 54) It is also worthy to understand that throughout history as the diplomacy and its practices changes overtime and adapting to the demands of the ever continuing changing international political systems so to are the concepts that govern the issue of diplomacy require overhauling. The concept of diplomacy has been shaped by changes in ideas with new ideas modifying old ones. Moreover, norms of behaviour, informal practices have also been at the root of new international customs and conventions. In China, for instance, a major role played by the diplomatic representations abroad is to create business ties in foreign nations so as to expand the market for Chinese products abroad. (d'Hooghe 2007:38) In this respect, new diplomatic norms do not come as a surprise when one considers the difficult and complex international arena on which the drama of international politics is staged. It is therefore not surprising that as a result of these changes, we see the European Union devising different means in which its consular offices have to be represented throughout the word. In this light, to look at diplomacy and representation exclusively within the context of nation state would no longer sound effective after talked about harmonization in representation. In addition, these days, new arrivals on the international political scene take advantage of the practices employed by states to push forward the interest they have on the international arena thereby bringing to light new issues to the existing global agenda. Some of these new comers do not only emulate states' but the regularly come up with new mechanisms and structures of diplomatic conduct but also influence the need to adjust certain diplomatic principles. It is for this reason that we see new ideas impacting on the way representation in diplomacy keeps changing. In return, faced with new challenges, states are inventing ways of adapting to and managing the change. Some of these efforts have been described in the previous paragraphs. Expert in diplomacy have been able to look in to some of these changes and are now in the process of examining how these changes have affected diplomacy and its practices. Amongst these changes the changing nature of diplomatic representation with much emphasis placed on the accountability of those shouldering the responsibility of coming up with foreign policies and conduct. (Gonesh and Jan Melissen 2005:23) As a result, the importance of consular affairs and its influence on the reputation of MFAs, international activism by sub-state governments; a focus on creating networks between MFAs and different domestic and international/public and private actors, engagement of governments in a dialogue with foreign civil societies and a consequent concentration on how diplomacy at the level of the public sector is handled. Cities are increasingly teaming up with other cities in foreign countries and doing exchanges in the fields of business, education and culture, thanks to the liaising role of their diplomatic representations. (van der Pluijm 2007:45) Whatever the case, much is still to do in with respect to the theoretical aspect of it. Most theoretical efforts are based on the changes that take place and how to go about the new practices coming in to play. From this point of view, few tend to look at the practical implications of these changes. At the practical level, it is imperative to draw attention to how these new developments have been recognized and how they now tend to gain grounds. There is no doubt that new techniques and methods of diplomatic behaviour that have come to play as a result changes in the international environment are, more or less uniformly, being used all over the world in most disparate regional contexts. The same holds true for new actors in the international arena. "Debuting as the "Ottawa Process" in 1996, the new diplomacy successfully led a fast track campaign of NGOS and small and medium sized nations to a treaty banning anti-personnel land mines. The bold break from traditional processes, the innovative methodology, and the amazing speed of these efforts won widespread attention, as well as a share of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for the NGO leader, American Jody Williams. Still, there were unique features to developing the land mine treaty that did not seem easily replicable, and few could foresee that the Ottawa Process might be the first act of a major new diplomatic drama. With Act Two, the establishment of an International Criminal Court, under its belt, the new diplomacy has now moved from its Ottawa debut to the centre stage of the diplomatic world in Rome and New York. It is time for a critical review of its performance, including an understanding of its actors and methods, how others including the United States might interact with it, and what the future for the new diplomacy may hold. The end of the Cold War and its predictable structure of international relations set the stage for new forms of diplomacy. From the close of World War 11 to the fall of the Berlin wall, the great powers that opposed Hitler dominated the diplomatic stage." (Davenport 2002:17) In addition to these, as some of the principal actors in the international political system still find it difficult accept on official basis that there have been new developments, so have states to some degree put in place new mechanisms and foreign relation apparatuses to help accommodate these new developments considering the demands of the new international environment. With these in place many states have begun to operate with a variety of new actor in the international political environment. All these have greatly affected the aspect of representation in diplomacy especially as the number of consular offices keeps rising. Recently new ways to accommodate new challenges have gained grounds on the international scene thus leading to the arrival of some informal international customs. The rate of expansion of these new developments h has been rapid and more time is needed for the creation of new norms and rules of conduct to govern these developments. (van Jaap 2006:98) The entire concept of diplomatic representation has had problems throughout the life of the modern diplomatic system. As opposed to the contemporary practice of diplomacy, the medieval ambassador represented his sovereign in the sense that he was him or embodied him. "Today, representation has come to involve at lease three elements: the sovereign; the ambassador as a person; and the ambassador in his representative capacity as the "sovereign." To complicate the matter further, the identities of sovereigns and diplomats alike have changed, blurred, and become more complex. Representation is a slippery concept but one which we cannot entirely do without. Politically incorrect though the language of representation might be, with its emphasis on symbols of power, wealth, and the grandeur of the state, it will not go away." (Mcgibbon 2001:29) REFERENCES G.R. Berridge, (2002) Diplomacy: Theory And Practice, Palgrave-Macmillan, London Keith Hamilton and Richard Langhorne, (1995) The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory and Administration, Routledge: London/New York Anderson M.S., (1993), The Rise of Modern Diplomacy, 1450-1919, Longman: London Geoff Berridge, M.A. Keens-Soper and Thomas Otte, (2001), Diplomatic Theory From Machiavelli To Kissinger, Palgrave-Macmillan: London Melanie Rodgers, (1998) Contemporary Diplomatic Theory And Practice, Random House: New York Robert Hu, (2007) The Evolution of Diplomacy, Random House: New York Ingrid d'Hooghe, (July 2007) The Rise of China's Public Diplomacy (Clingendael Diplomacy Papers) Jrme Larosch, (May 2007) Caught in the Middle; UN Involvement in the Western Sahara Conflict (Clingendael Diplomacy Papers) Rogier van der Pluijm, (April 2007) City Diplomacy: The Expanding Role of Cities in International Politics (Clingendael Diplomacy Papers) Willem van Jaap, (November 2006) How To Improve Diplomatic Representations (Clingendael Diplomacy Papers) Maurits S. Berger, (May 2006) Religion and Development Aid; The Special Case of Islam (Clingendael Diplomacy Papers) Simone Eysink, (September 2006) Human Rights' Dialogue in ASEM; Do NGOs Have a Role to Play (Clingendael Diplomacy Papers) Adam Watson, Diplomacy: The Dialogue between States, Routledge: New York., 1991 Ashvin Gonesh and Jan Melissen, (December 2005) Public Diplomacy: Improving Practice Allan Ramsay, (autumn 2006) "Is Diplomacy Dead" Contemporary Review, Volume: 288. Issue: 1682 Marija Manojlovic and Celia Thorheim, 2007, Crossroads of Diplomacy: New Challenges New Solutions, Netherlands Institute of Diplomacy Ian Mcgibbon, (2001) "A Dictionary of Diplomacy," New Zealand International Review, Volume: 26, Issue: 6 Simone Eysink, (September 2006) Human Rights' Dialogue in ASEM; Do NGOs Have a Role to Play (Clingendael Diplomacy Papers) Read More