By Darynell Rodríguez Torres.   Program Manager Policy and Advocacy Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, GPPAC   The traditional practice of diplomacy has been structured mainly around key functions performed by diplomats: representation, communication, information gathering and negotiation. These functions contribute to articulate what Hedley Bull called the ‘society of states’, facilitating interactions and minimizing tensions among countries. But no longer the states are the exclusive actors in international relations, nor are the government diplomats the exclusive agents of foreign policy.   In November 2012, the prestigious Clingendale Institute for International Relations issued the report ‘Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21st Century’ at the request of the Government of Finland. While the report acknowledges that government diplomats will remain central in international relations, it also warns that increasingly they will have to adapt to sharing their space with other governmental and non-governmental actors.   There is a growing number of people in businesses, think tanks and NGOs doing some work very similar to that of government diplomats and increasingly influencing policy debates. Some private companies even offer a full portfolio of ‘diplomatic’ services. Take for example the Independent Diplomat, a consulting firm with offices in New York, London, Brussels, Sydney, Juba and Hargeisa.  The company presents itself as an advisory group providing confidential advice and practical assistance in diplomatic strategy and technique.They have allegedly been active behind the scene in high profile negotiations such as the independence of Kosovo or the accession of Croatia into the European Union.   Along government’s diplomacy there is an emerging trend towards ‘citizens diplomacy’ or ‘people’s diplomacy.’ This concept refers to average citizens engaging as ‘champions’ of a cause or creating spaces for interaction among people from different states, specially when official channels are closed and formal diplomatic relations are broken. The Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, GPPAC, a global network of civil society organisations working in the field of conflict prevention and peacebuilding, has been at the forefront of some of these initiatives in different parts of the world.   GPPAC members have facilitated dialogue processes between experts from Russia and Georgia following the 2008 war between these two countries. They have promoted exchanges between academics from the United States and Cuba and provided policy recommendations to advance towards the normalization of relations between the two countries. GPPAC is currently promoting greater exchanges among civil society leaders in North East Asia to discuss security concerns in the Korean Peninsula, opening new spaces for interaction amid the stalled six party talks. While some of these initiatives are discreet (quiet diplomacy), they do not seek to replace or interfere in official diplomatic efforts but rather to reinforce,  potentiate and complement them. Acting outside the official channels allow these ‘citizen diplomats’ to reach there where officials have difficult access or are constrained by their mandate.   There is an increasing number of risks that need to be collectively managed and diplomacy needs to provide viable, effective and acceptable options on how to do it. Managing collective risks from the perspective of both, states’ interests and people’s interests, will require government diplomats and citizens diplomats to act as social entrepreneurs and forge collaborative alliances to be able to provide creative responses to global challenges.        

By Marília Maciel, coordinator of the Center for Technology & Society of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), and DiploFoundation associate. Reactions to Snowden’s NSA leaks in Brazil.  An unwritten alliance. This is how the historian Bradford Burns labeled the bilateral relations between Brazil and the United States in the beginning of the XXth century. Since then, there were few moments of tension; potential crises have been successfully encapsulated. In 2010, a much-welcomed US-Brazil Global Partnership dialogue was established as a framework for talks on high-level themes. Against this background of efforts to strengthen ties, president Dilma Rousseff’s decision to postpone her visit to the United States is worthy of attention. The documents leaked by Edward Snowden had significant repercussion in South America. In Brazil, national malaise began with privacy concerns over the sharing of data stored by Internet giants with the US National Security Agency (NSA). Tensions scaled up after allegations that the monitoring carried out by the NSA might have had a real impact on peace and security and national sovereignty. A Brazilian magazine affirmed that the United States used information collected by the NSA to influence the votes of the UN Security Council members on the Iranian nuclear issue in 2010. [1] Although former Minister Patriota tried to downplay the importance of the news, this is a sensitive topic for Brazil, especially because of the Brazilian-Turkish attempt to break a deal to solve the impasse. The last straw was the news about the monitoring of Rousseff’s communications. Since then, the presidential visit was hanging by a thread. Most Brazilian analysts believe that the president’s decision to postpone the meeting was correct.[2] There were no pressing issues on the agenda, and going to the US could negatively impact her popularity. Moreover, Brazil’s reaction may strengthen some actors who would like NSA’s policies to be reviewed, both inside the United States and abroad: Brazil signals that these policies could be harmful to Washington’s relations with key partners and puts pressure on other governments to respond firmly as well. But in spite of the current focus on Brazil’s moves, the country is not acting alone. There were concerted responses in South America. The VII Summit of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) condemned the interception of communications, which represent a “threat to safety” and a “violation of human rights”. Countries of UNASUR instructed the Council of Defense and Council of Infrastructure and Planning (COSIPLAN) to advance projects on cyber defense and interconnection of fiber networks with the goal of developing local technology and keeping more Internet traffic inside the region. Mercosur adopted a similar decision, which was presented before the UN Security Council by president Cristina Kirchner. It is also worthy of notice that, on the global level, BRICS has plans to deploy a submarine cable that would connect the five countries, decentralizing Internet traffic that is currently routed through the United States. Documents leaked say that Rousseff’s communications were monitored in order to figure out if Brazil should be considered “a friend, an enemy or a problem”. Regardless of the context in which this doubt was raised, disappointment grows in Brazil with the apparently still undefined status of this bilateral relationship. Maybe the alliance mentioned by Burns was left unwritten for a reason. Marilia.maciel@fgv.br | http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts  | Twitter: @MariliaM. Biography of the author: Mari_lia Maciel-short bio updated  

  By Barend ter Haar [1], Clingendael Institute of International Relations. In November 2013 the Netherlands hopes to be elected in UNESCO´s Executive Board. This would place the Netherlands in a good position to promote the urgently needed reform of the organization. Among the general public UNESCO is best known for its work in the field of culture. Thanks to treaties such as the World Heritage Convention and The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict UNESCO is often described as “the cultural organization of the United Nations”. But UNESCO ´s mandate also includes education, science and communication! We do not have to wait for the adoption of the new Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, to know that education and science will be crucial to reach these goals. Good education not only benefits individuals but also societies. Mothers that have received more schooling take better informed decisions about immunization and nutrition of their children. Education can make people aware of the importance of sustainable production and consumption, etc. Science is essential to address global problems such as climate change and scarcity of water. To use the results of scientific research everywhere, education is needed everywhere. As the specialized UN organization for education and science, UNESCO has great potential to promote international cooperation in these fields by convening the stakeholders and by promoting and facilitating their cooperation. However, so far UNESCO has not taken up this challenge, except on a few topics such as oceanography. The Secretariat does useful work, also outside the field of culture, such as on educational statistics, on protecting journalists, on promoting Open Educational Resources and by promoting Man and Biosphere reserves and Geoparks, but often its rhetoric conceals that its “work programme” contains very little action. Take for example a Culture of Peace, proclaimed to be the first of UNESCO ‘s two “overarching objectives”. UNESCO officially adopted an “action programme for a Culture of Peace”, but on close scrutiny it turns out to be empty of concrete content (see: http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/UNESCO-and-the-culture-of-peace.pdf). Most nations have appointed Permanent Representatives to UNESCO, but they convene only for a few weeks every two years during the General Conference and even then the negotiations are focused on the work programme of the Secretariat instead of on the state of education, science, culture and communication in the world. From time to time UNESCO convenes World Conferences on its subjects, but their effect is small because very little attention is given to their follow up. In his first Speech From the Throne King Willem Alexander referred to the long tradition of international cooperation of the Netherlands. Based on that tradition and on a clear view on the global importance of education, science, culture and communication, Membership of UNESCO ´s Executive Board for a four year period will give the Netherlands a good chance, together with likeminded countries from all over the world, to let UNESCO fulfill its potential.