Diplomacy : What Does The Latest Trend Indicate?

Madhavji Shrestha

It is high time Nepal's politically authoritative players were aware of the recent developments in the diplomatic arena. Very glaringly, the initial years of the 21st century are witnessing the dismantling of the strongly fortified walls of traditional diplomacy. It is evident that the growing supremacy of the common people combined with the enhancement of knowledge on international affairs even among the masses have led to shifting trends in the conduct of diplomacy, which was formerly considered an exclusive business of government-authorised diplomatic officials. Public diplomacyThe fundamental right to information enjoyed by the people in general has also led to the development of this new trend. As a consequence, the much pronounced public diplomacy and track-two diplomacy (people-to-people diplomacy) are fast gaining ground. The first relates to the people's inherent right to remain informed about the government's actions concerning external affairs, and the second is, becoming helpful in making international relations people-initiated to solve problems. Numerous developments can be advanced to support this trend.

Alongside this development, newer concepts and practices are making headway in the realm of diplomacy and its related fields. The old mindset and attitude are giving in to new thinking and approach. Straightforwardness and openness, instead of working behind the screen and remaining aloof in diplomatic business, have now come to stay in recent years. "Soft Power" and "Soft Ear" are now figuring prominently in diplomatic activities around the world. Dr. Joseph S. Nye Jr., a reputed expert on international affairs at Harvard University, is a leading figure who has been propagating the concept of soft power. He says soft power, as opposed to hard power, is "not the power to coerce, bully, browbeat and bribe, but the power to attract, to persuade, to influence through wisdom, example and attentiveness." In the present day world, excessive reliance on the hard power of economic strength and military might for any breathtaking achievement on the diplomatic front is neither recommended nor appreciated by the civilised society. Of course, hard power can still make the day under some unavoidable circumstances, but the solution arrived at through the use of this power will not be ever lasting, nor appear acceptable to all the concerned and affected people. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has, in his recently published write-up, put his trust on the wisdom of the soft ear which he has described as "discernment ? seeing a person or situation in the round, the bad with the good, and being able to establish rapport and an effective working relationship despite disagreement, however sharp". He believes in "engagement, dialogue before confrontation." This shows the uprightness of understanding and rapprochement in diplomatic activity. Interestingly, his belief to act accordingly to solve the problems facing the UN at the moment is beyond any doubt and debate.

The development of the softer tendency and behaviour in recent days largely owes itself to the increased awareness of humanitarian consideration. Certainly, this trend would reign supreme and stand above the narrow nationalistic feelings and ethnic divisiveness that still unfortunately torture humans in various underdeveloped regions of this planet. Social consciousness has to grow on a global scale to eliminate anything that frets the human society. Today, human concern is omnipresent in every aspect of global activity. Diplomacy and its relevant concerns are not outside its circumference. In reality, diplomacy is a "human intensive" activity. It is conducted largely through personal communications and individual actions, evaluations and decisions as well as concomitant activity in the course of carrying on diplomatic duties and functions.The requirement of diplomacy for spontaneous human involvement is usually presented as one of the key conditions for the diplomatic success of wider implication and greater dimension. Still the core need of diplomacy is closer human interactions as well as human touch. This, in turn, necessitates more human communications and greater human contacts that greatly depend on skills and abilities learnt and acquired by diplomats in question. The need to measure and examine these qualities should never be sidelined under any circumstance. Importantly, the overriding need to understand intentionality is of utmost significance, whether it be in modern diplomacy or post modern diplomacy. The human component in diplomatic dealings and concerns would never diminish even if one were to rely on the recent tools of information technology. The correct intentionality can be properly judged only if there is sufficient human touch and interaction. No other possibility appears before us than human contact and connectivity.Most recently, diplomacy on the one side is being conducted openly and, so to say, in a transparent way, and is becoming more public oriented. On the other, it requires a human approach to gain success of any consideration despite the predominance being taken away by the rapid development of information technology designed and specifically meant for it. Every nation desiring to send abroad appropriate ambassadors and envoys takes into serious consideration these highly needed qualities.

Virtual diplomacyWhile considered the emerging global environment, the Nepalese government needs to be highly selective in assigning ambassadors and envoys keeping in view the qualities and capabilities required of them in the recently developed context of diplomatic behaviour and practices if any perceptible success is to be expected from them. If not, it would be far better to conduct diplomacy for carrying out any sort of bilateral and international relations and related affairs through the use of e-diplomacy and/or virtual diplomacy through cyberspace. The Foreign Ministry, as the principal agent of the government responsible for conducting Nepali diplomacy, needs to make a definite choice between human intensive diplomacy and an electronics driven one. For the former, the country needs people enriched with well-rounded diplomatic skills and knowledge, whereas for the latter ,diploproject equipped with diploportals should be on hand to see it materialise. Could the authorities at the helm take it as their circumstance-led decision? This must remain very high on the agenda.

Source: The Rising Nepal, July 26, 2007