"New Diplomacy?" I think not

What does it mean for diplomacy to be a "behavior" as much as an "institution?" What does this mean for public diplomacy?

Kelley’s argument about the evolution and pluralization of diplomacy is a firm reminder to us all that despite what purists may think, diplomacy—like many arts or sciences—is a living, breathing craft capable of change, improvement, and progression—or even regression. It is also a craft and tool that can be acquired by all those who are willing to learn to wield it. Thus, agenda-setting and action are no longer in the hands of state actors, Kelley argues.

He fails to make note, however, that agenda-setting and actions never were entirely in the hands of state actors. Thus, it’s not that the gaping chasm of unequal influence of nation-states and non-state agents has healed itself, it’s just that as ICTs continued to develop and accessibility to these technologies begun spread in the 21st century, technological diffusion takes place. The quill pen gives way to the wing of an electronic Tweet. More people have access, and access helps to empower, and empowerment certainly sways influence, however, this phenomenon does not replace the functions of diplomacy as an institution.

Instead, Kelley’s brand of “new diplomacy” is not a new mode of behavior; it is an improved means of communication, networking, and negotiating in the globalized dynamics of our modern world.

Critical to note is Kelley’s point about populations and their identification with transnational concerns. In our globalized world, political, economic, and social concerns are no longer local, but international—and in being international, they transcend traditional boundaries set forth by the nation-state. As a result, the global public is increasingly likely to “‘relocate’ authority to a non-state entity or figure, which in turn enables the non-state actor to amass moral legitimacy and to influence the behavior of states from the outside” (289). Kelley calls these non-state actors the “new diplomats.”

While they do maneuver “within the state system and command authority across it,” these non-state actors highlighted in the article are not diplomats in the traditional sense, period. They are also not the “new diplomats,” as Kelley is fond of labeling them. Calling these non-state actors ‘diplomats’ is a misnomer. Instead, these non-state actors are tremendous networks of influence—but they are not diplomats. They are polymaths, masters of their technological savvy, and well-connected free agents eager to secure their own agenda through diplomatic behavior and engagement. In the 21st century they continue to engage in diplomacy just as they always have, except now they are armed and more deeply embedded in the minds and hearts of the public through their activity with social media and ICTs.

In repeatedly highlighting the demise of diplomacy as an institution and its proliferation as a behavior, Kelley reveals his epiphany while seemingly ignoring how throughout history, non-state actors—such as corporate actors—have always had a hand (or a fist) in negotiating (and racketing) policy in international affairs. The institution of diplomacy is open to progression, improvements, and technological diffusion. Non-state actors have gained greater primacy and strength in their ability to positively contribute to their public diplomacy of choice, but they have not replaced their official counterparts. Diplomats continue to function as official representatives of their states abroad, constrained always by protocol, but distinguished by their responsibility to serve and their ability to discern and navigate the delicate negotiations that must take place at the decentralized table of modern diplomacy.