Lancaster Ngo Diplomacy Nov 08

Perspectives on Non-Governmental Diplomacy: From Scholarship to Practice Carol Lancaster Georgetown University December 2008 NGOs are not new in international relations. As Henri Rouille d’Orfeuil recounts in his book, La diplomatie non gouvernementale, in one form or another they go back in Europe to the Middle Ages. But in the past half century, we have seen a major increase in their numbers worldwide, in the efforts of many of them to better the human condition and above all, in their efforts to influence the policies of governments and international organizations. The increasing engagement of NGOs in many issues of international importance – relief, economic and social development, human rights, environmental protection, landmine eradication, debt reduction, human trafficking and a host of other issues – has attracted the attention of scholars and they have already produced an expanding literature on what we can call NGO diplomacy. This literature has examined three major questions: o What are NGOs? Are they social movements? Single issue public interest groups? Representatives of the poor and excluded in society? Seekers after international public welfare? Contractors little different from for-profit consulting organizations? Little more than extensions of their leadership? Manipulators of the voiceless? Behind these questions are more basic concerns about their representativeness, legitimacy and accountability. o What techniques have they used to advance their goals? Can those techniques be described as ‘diplomacy’? o What has their impact been on the issues that have engaged their attention? To what extent have they achieved their policy goals? And how can we measure that impact? There is one more prominent question: where is the NGO movement likely to go in the future – especially in the wake of the financial and economic crisis still upon us? Briefly, scholars have answered these questions in the following way: o NGOs include all of the categories mentioned above. The ones of most interest in the area of ‘diplomacy’ are those involved in advocacy on international public interest issues, with considerable expertise on staff, often with large grass roots support and with an international reach, including organizational linkages and networks. o The issue of representativeness, legitimacy and accountability of NGOs remains an open, contested one. This is especially an issue in functioning democracies where, in theory at least, all citizens should have a voice or where those the NGO attempts to represent are not part of the leadership or grass roots support of the organization.

1

o Scholars have examined in case studies how NGOs have sought to frame international issues, put issues on the international agendas, mobilize support for their positions, persuade or pressure policy officials to adopt their positions and gain access and negotiate on their issues at international conferences. The influence of NGOs has been enhanced with the internet and other communications breakthroughs which has permitted them to communicate information, mobilize widespread support, create cross-border alliances and persuade or exert pressure on a variety of governments in international campaigns or at the time of international negotiations. While the international influence of NGOs has been greatly enhanced by all of these technical and organizational changes and their activism has, along with other changes in the world, circumscribed the traditional sovereignty of states, their influence has not signaled the end of the state as a powerful agency in world affairs. o Scholars have struggled with the impact of NGO diplomacy. The problem of evaluation and establishing causality is no easier in this area than it is in development aid interventions – how should success be measured? How much impact did they have given all the other factors at play? What would have likely happened without their efforts? How broadly or narrowly should an evaluation be and when should it be undertaken? What conditions or factors help or hinder NGO diplomatic success? NGOs have clearly been able to frame issues and put them on the international agenda (as with some of the UN conferences of the 1990s), mobilize public support and create alliances across borders (e.g., debt relief, landmines, human rights, trafficking, religious persecution). When success is measured in achieving desired policy outcomes, scholars are cautious in drawing conclusions though some find that NGOs have successfully influenced policy outcomes with their information and expertise (e.g., at the time of negotiations).1 Their impact seems most evident in the area of environmental issues. (In my view, scholars have been far too tentative and lacking in initiative in their efforts to evaluate NGO diplomatic impacts. There is much more than just achieving stated goals that can be assessed and should be through in depth case studies.) The issue of the future of NGO diplomacy raises some interesting and timely issues. First, NGOs are different from states and operate in a different (far less coercive) environment. Is it time to develop a body of best practices and training programs for NGO diplomats in NGO diplomacy? Second, where do NGOs need to be strengthened? The major NGO deficit country is China. It is not easy for NGOs to operate there (domestic or foreign) but there are openings. How can the worldwide movement strengthen NGOs there? In other places where NGOs are constrained or few? Third, there are both dangers and opportunities in the current worldwide financial and economic crisis. The dangers are (1) that worldwide attention will shift from bettering the human condition of others to protecting one’s own economic situation; and (2) that financing for NGOs will drop

For example, see Michele Betsill and Elisabeth Corell, NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations on International Environmental Negotiations, MIT Press, Boston, 2008. 1

2

precipitously, especially in developing countries where the democratic deficits are the greatest and the voices of public interests and the poor are the weakest. The opportunities are more ephemeral but no less important. (1) The grave financial and economic crisis facing us today is a result of deficient regulation of financial markets, primarily in the US and its spread throughout a globalized world. These problems bring into question both the excessively laissez-faire approach to financial regulation in the US and the costs of global financial and economic integration. These debates are only just beginning but they could bring about a fundamental change in views worldwide towards both the appropriate role of governments in society and economies and the extent and dangers of globalization. NGOs may want to consider their views towards both of these issues (these views have often differed from those of governments and major business and commercial interests in the past). (2) The best time to consider fundamental institutional change is in the wake of a crisis (that is why such changes often follow major wars). We are in a serious crisis now; the crisis itself and the period immediately thereafter may present an opportunity for beneficial chances in all kinds of institutions, including those involved with the many aspects of global governance. How can NGOs take advantage of such an opportunity? What goals will they choose and diplomatic tools can they use to advance beneficial change in the world?

3