Abstract
Diplomatic missions to Western nations, at
least in their traditional form, are facing a crunch of existence. The 21st
century has dramatically changed the way nations interact with each other. The speed
at which information is exchanged, economic crises spiral, complex security
menaces emerge and the way states communicate in real time all raise the issue whether
permanent plenipotentiary & extraordinary attachés are still relevant. Gone
are the days when the Treaty of Wuchalle
between Ethiopia’s Emperor Menelliqué and Italy that were concluded through
diplomats in the 1880s. Today, information transcends plans & frontiers, trillions
move unimpeded across a global network of swifts and networks are fast swapping
the pecking order. As opposed to closed-door diplomacy, media transparency is
the clarion call of the day, crowding out diplomatic pride.
In this world of
instantaneous social media where leaders proclaim positions on international
matters without even telling their emissaries, old-style diplomats struggle to
sustain their relevance. Hence, while missions still make the bulwark of
international affairs, fundamental forces that demand change include revolution in information technology, proliferation of new media, knowledge on
globalization of business and finance,
public participation in complex issues that transcend national boundaries.
Diplomacy must be overhauled to make it
more accessible, participatory, technology driven in deliberations and
implementation. Ending the culture of secrecy and exclusivity
is a requirement for developing a collaborative relationship with the public. Further, it is to adopt a
disciplined coordination model for the conduct of diplomacy. Another immediate need is a renaissance of professionalism. The potential solution scenarios
discussed in the paper are strategies for new branding of
nations, governance and leadership capacity, founding independent private
sector think tanks and a renewed role for embassies (Oliver, 2016).
See lecture here or https://www.academia.edu/28765827/Public_Policy_Diplomacy_and_Nation_Branding_in_a_Digital_Epoch_The_Irrelevant_Diplomat_-_RL-_CCXIII_MMVI_Vol_XI_No_XXI
Intellectuals
analyze the operations of international systems; leaders build them. There is a
vast difference between the perspective of an
analyst and that of a leader. The analyst can choose which problem to study,
whereas the leader’s problems are imposed on him. The analyst can allot time to
come to a clear conclusion; the overwhelming challenge to the leader is the pressure
of time. The analyst runs no risk. If his conclusions prove wrong, he can write
another treatise. The leader is permitted only one guess; his mistakes are
irretrievable. The analyst has available to him all the facts; he will be
judged on his intellectual power. The statesman must act on assessments that
cannot be proved at his time; he will be judged by history on the basis of how wisely he managed
the inevitable change and, above all, by how well he preserves the
peace ― Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy
