Adapting to the 21st century’s diplomatic needs

A comparison of Belgian and Dutch national diplomatic systems

The role and functions of contemporary diplomats and foreign ministries are seriously challenged intoday’s society. As today’s diplomatic landscape is “much more fragmented than it used to be, due to the mounting influence of non-state actors such as paramilitary groups, NGOs and global activists”, former British diplomat Carne Ross believes that “Conventional diplomacy is ill equipped to deal with these actors and is therefore losing some of its power and its relevance”. 1 In a self-reflection study regarding its place within international politics and relations in the 21st century, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs also warned that “Foreign ministries are at a tipping point between being more relevant than ever before and being lost in irrelevance as other agencies step into the foreign policy space”.2 It is argued that due to Globalisation and Europeanization, 3 the very nature of diplomacy is put into question, and if the actual diplomatic system wouldn’t adapt itself properly, it would become irrelevant and replaced by other actors.4 In order to survive, various scholars as well as practitioners believe that national diplomatic systems should be more and more “network and partnership” oriented, skilled in economic statecraft, engage more beyond the state, enhance its consular functions and finally it should also refocus/restructure its diplomatic representations in line with the new global political & economic outlook of the world.5 In this paper, we will compare how two national diplomatic systems have adapted themselves to this changing environment: Belgium and The Netherlands. In what follows, we will first analyse what both countries see as “challenges” to which they believe their national diplomatic systems should be adapted to. Subsequently, we will have a look at how they believe their ministries and diplomatic networks should be reorganised in order to handle this new reality. Finally, we will also try to draw some conclusions based upon these two case studies for our (conceptual) thinking about “challenges for national diplomacies” in general.

Looking at various policy documents, political declarations as well as academic articles and books, it is fair to state that both countries experience five similar challenges to their national diplomatic systems.6 First of all, both countries believe that due to globalisation, the world becomes more and more interdependent and “interconnected”. This leads to a new governance system in which various domestic policies and politics now also have international implications and vice versa do international politics now also have domestic implications. The consequences for their diplomatic systems are that diplomats have to become increasingly familiar with all different types of policy areas (ranging from health to environment and energy) and that the MFA is not the solely ministry anymore that acts on the international level as the various other ministries are creating their own international (working) relations and links. Linked to that is the challenge of “Europeanization”,7 which also implies that various other domestic actors become relevant in the European policy making arena, but also that the MFA needs to cooperate more and more with these different (governmental) entities and their experts. Thirdly, in an interconnected world, various other Non-Governmental Actors become actors on thediplomatic playing field as well: (multinational) companies, civil society organisations as well as think tanks are increasingly relevant in international politics and governance.8 Fourthly, for both countries, new communication technology and patterns pose serious challenges as well: as news is spread so easily and especially at such a high pace, “real-time” diplomacy becomes the norm and challenges some of the fundamentals of how diplomacy has functioned for over centuries. Finally, and linked to the latter,together with these new communication patterns comes an “overload” of information, and Brussels as well as The Hague see it as a challenge to manage and filter these huge amounts of information 9.

Despite these five challenges that both countries experience, there are also some challenges that only one of the two experiences. The (possible) rise of subnational diplomatic systems for example, is something that only triggers Belgium, but not The Netherlands. Since 1993, Belgium is a federal state composed of various communities and regions, which are competent for a wide range of (domestic) policy fields.10 Seeing the fact that more and more domestic policies have international implications due to globalisation and Europeanization, it are these subnational systems that become relevant diplomatic/international actors because of the principle in foro interno, in foro externo. This has various consequences for the national Belgian diplomatic system, as we will see below. But also the Netherlands has “its own” challenges: being an economy that is heavily reliant on international trade, it constantly needs to monitor where emerging economies and opportunities lay (and thus needs to adapt its orientation/focus accordingly). Finally, an ever-growing part of its society is travelling around the world and many settle down in other countries leading to a more central role of consular workings in delegations abroad.11

Now, how have these two national diplomatic systems adopted themselves in order to cope with the previously described challenges? For both countries we can regroup their (intended) actions into four themes. Let us start by looking at Belgium. First of all, various actions were undertaken to reorganize its internal organization drastically.12 In 2004, a “modernising unit” was created within the MFA. It advised for a new organisational culture and new human resources/management policy, in which very strict selection criteria, as well as mandates for management functions and contracts limited in time stood central. The MFA also had to look for and hire all kinds of specialists (instead of generalists), as for instance on energy and environment.

Secondly, a “reorientation” of its diplomatic network took place. In that way, various embassies were closed and more attention was directed towards the BRICS countries,13 as well as the postings towards multilateral institutions and organisations such as the UN, NATO and IAEA. Thirdly, and linked to the latter, it became a central strategy for the MFA to put “European Affairs” and everything that had to do with the EU central in its functioning. By doing so, it proliferated itself as being the (internal) focal point for all questions/issues related to it.14 Fourthly and finally, the outlook of the Belgian diplomatic system has been redrawn by the rise of subnational diplomatic systems, as described above. 15

Let us now turn to The Netherlands, were similar themes were dealt with, be it in a different mannerthough. First of all, The Hague also felt the urgency to reorganize the organisational set-up of its MFA (drastically). As structure should follow function, the ministry should be more network oriented and built up of various policy-teams in which people from different backgrounds (also from different ministries) and locations come together (virtually) and draft the international Dutch positions. Secondly and linked to that, the MFA as well as the delegations abroad should be very well (inter-) connected internally as well as externally. It is believed that businesses, non-governmental organisations and civil society at large should be more involved in policy-making as well as the proper communication hereof. Thirdly, and similar to Belgium, The Netherlands has also reorganised its diplomatic representation system, and this by closing embassies in economic-wise less important countries (especially Central- and Latin-America), and strengthening of its embassies in economic-wise important countries such as the BRICS (a new consulate-general will be opened in West-China).

But The Hague goes further in the reorganization of its diplomatic postings than Brussels. It is believed that the already existing postings should be more flexible and more in line with the 21st century’s reality and needs leading to various types of possible representation schemes.16 Last but not least, the Netherlands also puts the consular work of its diplomatic system (more) central, as it is believed that by doing so, it stays of relevance and utility for its citizens abroad.17

To conclude, we can say that the two studied diplomatic systems reflect very well the conceptual thinking on the changing nature of national diplomatic systems in the 21st century. The challenges put forward in the various policy documents, as well as the adopted changes (or intentions to change) indeed reflect what has been written in the academic literature at hand. Nevertheless, the scholarly world can still learn from how exactly both countries will give shape to the adopted changes, and whether or not these proof to be the successful formula or not.

References

1 Carne Ross as cited in: Archer, Emmanuelle “Are ambassadors irrelevant in today’s world?”, Expat Life Blog, retrieved on 24/10/2013, ttp://www.winningaway.com/are-ambassadors-irrelevant-in-today’s-world/.

2 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, The Foreign Ministry at a Tipping Point, Post-Conference Report, Brussels, 2011, p.4.

3 Europeanization might strengthen or weaken the MFA: in Ireland and Portugal (being smaller member states) it strengthens the MFA whereas in Finland and Belgium it strengthened the role of the prime ministers office. For more on Globalization (conceptualizations, consequences for international politics etc.), see Baylis, John, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, The Globalization of world politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011.

4 A national diplomatic system is a functionally related group of agencies and actors with defined objectives and a complex of rules governing behaviour, located in a national political space. It is thus not synonymous of the ministry of foreign affairs (MFA), although the MFA will, normally, be a key element of it. For more, see Hocking, Brian, “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the National Diplomatic System”, in Pauline Kerr and Geoffrey Wiseman, Diplomacy in a Globalizing World: Theories and Practices, New York, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 123-140.

5 See for example Riordan, Shaun, “Reforming Foreign Services for the Twenty-First Century”, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 2, no. 2, 2007, pp. 161-173.

6 For Belgium, our main sources included the following three documents: Delcourde, Raoul, Les diplomates belges. D'hier à Demain, Mardaga, Wavre, 2010 ; Duran Manuel, Criekemans David , Melissen Jan, Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar en bestedingsanalyse van het buitenlands beleid en de diplomatieke representatie van regio's met wetgevende bevoegdheid en kleine staten, Vlaams Steunpunt Buitenlands Beleid & UA, Antwerpen, 2009 ; Coolsaet, Rik “Belgische en Nederlandse diplomatie in een spiegel. Ministeries van Buitenlandse Zaken als permanente draaischijf”, Internationale Spectator, 57(10), 2003. For The Netherlands, our main sources included the following three documents: Timmermans, Frans, “Modernisering Nederlandse diplomatie”, Dutch Parliament (Second Chamber), 32734 nr. 13, The Hague, 2013 ; Van Leeuwen, Arthur, e.a., “Modernisering van de diplomatie, tussenrapport van de groep van Wijzen”, Advisory Committee modernising diplomacy, The Hague, 2013 ; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, op. cit..

7 See Börzel, Tanja, and Thomas Risse, "When Europe hits home: Europeanization and domestic change", European Integration online Papers, 4.15, 2000.

8 Have a look at Hocking, Brian, “Non-State Actors and the Transformation of Diplomacy”, in Bob Reinalda (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Non-State Actors, Surrey, Ashgate, 2011, pp. 225-236.

9 How to filter the needed information from twitter streams for example? See Henry, Owen, " Twitter Diplomacy: Engagement through Social Media in 21st Century Statecraft’, Oberlin College, doctoral thesis, Oberlin, 2012.

10 For more, see Criekmans, David and Catherine Lanneau, “Les relations extérieures de la Flandre, de la Communauté française, de la Région wallonne et de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale”, in: Van den Wijngaert, Mark, D’une Belgiuqe unitaire à une Belgique fédérale. 40 ans d’évolution politique des Communautés et des Régions (1971-2011), Flemish Parliament, 2011, pp. 201-220.

11 Nevertheless, these two challenges are also valid for Belgium, be it in a less degree.

12 Thijs, Nick, “Een nieuwe managementcultuur in de publieke sector?”, Tijdschrift van het steunpunt WAV, 1-2, Brussels, 2006. 13 Brazil, Russia, India, China and South-Africa.

14 Coolsaet, Rik, op. cit., p. 461.

15 As an example: quite often the policy area at hand is a shared competence implying that the national MFA needs to cooperate/work in cohesion with the subnational entities.

16 A regional delegation is being set up in the Baltic States instead of having one embassy in each country; there is no permanent embassy for Iceland but only “laptop-diplomats”, co-location opportunities in big cities like Vienna and Paris are currently under consideration, etc.

17 Timmermans, Frans, op. cit., p.18.