INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE â€œDIPLOMACY OF SMALL STATESâ€? 8-9 FEBRUARY 2007 MALTA DiploFoundation hosted an International Conference on the Diplomacy of Small States, held in Malta on 8-9 February 2007. The Conference represents the beginning of a yearlong project on the diplomacy of small states that includes a series of other thematic and just-in-time events, such as an event in Geneva on the diplomacy of small states in multilateral institutions, another in Brussels on small states and the EU, and so on. The Conference was organised in partnership with the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malta. This document reports on the conference activities and presents the way forward for the project. The Report consists of two main parts that contain a total of five sections. Part I in the first section gives a very brief contextual background on the diplomacy of small states. The second section chronicles by way of synthesis the discussion that occurred during the conference, organised around the following themes: Foreign Policy and Diplomacy Diplomatic Representation Diplomatic Training Diplomatic Tools and Services Regional and Group Aspects of Small State Diplomacy Part II starts drafting the way forward. Thus, the third section of the Report advances a set of general principles of small state diplomacy, each drawn from the discussion. These principles will be further enhanced and then form the first part of the Toolkit of a Small State Diplomat, which is one of the outcomes of the overall project. The fourth section outlines some of the research areas that are relevant for small state diplomacy. Instead of a conclusion, the last section condenses all parts of the Report that precede it into a draft of project outcomes, hence drafting the way forward for the project.
PART I: DIPLOMACY OF SMALL STATES IN PERSPECTIVE 1. BACKGROUND: Small states are viable and active partners within the international community. A common characteristic of small states is that the thrust and nature of their diplomacy puts a higher premium on persuasion and consensus building than on power play in the conduct of international relations. Small states are highly dependent on developments beyond their own borders. For example, in the environmental field, small island states are highly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and natural disasters. Most small states are highly sensitive to the state of the global economy, including global trade arrangements, investment policy, and monetary developments. In regard to security, small states are quickly and deeply affected by regional and global conflicts and instabilities, ranging from physical effects on critical infrastructure, fiscal demands on the health system, social effects of drug and small arms trafficking, to physical and financial effects of terrorism on tourism and the economic sectors. Such factors make small states natural supporters of international cooperation. Diplomacy is the main vehicle that gives small states a voice in the global arena to ensure that common goals, issues, and problems are properly addressed for large and small, developed and developing countries alike. How can small states employ diplomacy to help build the global stability vital for their own existence? How can they influence global processes that, in turn, strongly affect them (e.g.,
climate change, environmental pollution, water scarcity)? How can they be heard on the global scene, given their limited human and financial resources? How can small states turn challenges into opportunities in and through their diplomacy?
2. THEMES CONSIDERED Foreign Policy and Diplomacy The distinction between the foreign policy and the diplomacy of small states was made early during the conference discussion and drew attention throughout. Foreign policy, if a country goes so far as to formulate it, is the result of objective factors (more specifically, of needs or other pressing situations), and it should form the basis on which decisions are made and acted upon. For instance, small island states sensed and faced the danger of climate change quite some time before it became a reality for other, larger states. Such an environmental agenda forced itself upon them and, thus, it became a part of their foreign policy. Because environmental hazards were neither home grown, nor could be curbed by domestic policies alone, diplomacy became the way to address it. The initial discussion started with the proposition that, even though the foreign policy of many small states is unremarkable--in part because of their need for flexibility--the diplomacy of small states has historically proven to be extremely creative and sometimes quite extraordinary. Some of the diplomatic influence is positional, yet this influence depends on the personality/quality/ambition of individual politicians and diplomats. Even so, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that supports these diplomats must be as efficient and coherent as possible. Such compactness within the diplomatic service of a country (or a region) may effectively magnify diplomatic influence manifold. One way to do so in any given setting is to look for the soft spots that may be used in one’s favour, which is always easier if there is in place a coherent and encompassing foreign policy. To have a coherent foreign policy is important, but to have coherent diplomacy is most important for a small state. Policy should be compact and consistent, projecting a singlemindedness of policy objectives. It should involve all relevant stakeholders in the country, both in its setting and in its implementation. Some participants pointed out that small states tend to be more coherent in their policies, since larger states have many centres of power; others held, however, that great incoherence may emanate from different national institutions and even from the same institution, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A small country--the whole country--should know what its interests are so it can know how to complement other entities and processes. This is the groundwork of a coherent foreign policy. With lucidity and coherence in the diplomatic direction, nevertheless, historical opportunities sometimes open for small countries significantly to influence the diplomatic process in their favour, or at least, in the global interest. Such ‘altruism by default’ incrementally furthers global peace; it also brings much diplomatic credit and may open future historical opportunities, which may fit into the long-term strategy (that is, policy) of a persistent and consistent diplomatic activity of a small state. Small states can play the role of “Norm Entrepreneur,” or even that of “Keeper of the World’s Conscience.” They will not be suspected of wanting to rule the world and can use this to drive or mediate diplomatic processes with a solid moral grounding. Small states are already on the front lines of many global issues, particularly in the environmental field; accordingly, they are in a position to be examples. Many small states are in geopolitical trouble zones; hence, they are in a position to be intermediaries, or interlocutors. Thus, even though international relations theory is dominated by a concentration on large states, small states can have a significant, latent influence and not merely by conforming to the interests and strategies of large states. Small states tend to be conformist--and conformity is a very subtle thing!--in part due to a feeling of powerlessness. Yet, they can rely on multilateral institutions, drawing strength from rules and regulations. A possible alternative to conformity is rallying round a global process, such as the global implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. Diplomatic Representation The discussion on diplomatic representation permeated the conference. It was assisted by an earlier conceptual discourse initiated by Sharp, tied here to small state diplomacy. The ceremonial and symbolic value of diplomatic representation draws on conceptions from a 2
different era and ideas from a different understanding of sovereignty. The diplomat, especially the ambassador, is a representative of the sovereign, while the true sovereign in today’s age is the people. Diplomats thus represent their country’s people, their national and cultural identity, and, most pragmatically, their interests. For the small states diplomat, the sovereign equality of states is of great importance, though the raw influence of power is omnipresent. The many lines of today’s information and communication flow complicate diplomatic representation even further. Not only instructions and reports, but also exogenous media and civil society reports demand a diplomat’s attention. Instructions do not pass through a vacuum. Lines can snap, and many bottlenecks slow communication in every institution, varying the individual diplomat between the extremes of ‘completely an agent’ and ‘full discretion’. Discretion goes all through the diplomatic cycle. It is there all the time in diplomacy, and it is very personal. The diplomatic representative becomes, in such circumstances, decreasingly a representative and increasingly simply a diplomat; this is especially true of the career diplomat. The diplomat becomes a representative of an idea also; and since diplomacy has been typically associated with the idea of peace, the diplomat may be said to be a representative of peace. Tied with the principle that diplomats from small state may be “Norm Entrepreneurs” and “Keepers of the World’s Conscience,” they may practically rally around such global processes as the Millennium Development Goals and global public goods. The small state diplomat, thus understood, may act in an absence of clear instructions or, even when in the possession of clear instructions, may go beyond them in favour of a process that furthers long-term peace. In bilateral diplomacy, the symbolism of the diplomat as representative of the sovereign is more evident and less ambiguous and complex. For the small state diplomat, nonetheless, even this is never straightforward. She or he has often multiple accreditations, often with bilateral in conjunction with multilateral functions. She or he has diplomatic and political targets, trade and economic goals, and multilateral processes to which to attend, alongside consular aims and objectives. All of this must be accomplished with limited resources. The overall size of the country’s diplomatic network, as well as the size of each office individually, must be the result of a carefully weighed strategy. Its officers must have specialised skills, especially in economic and trade issues. Higher-level diplomats need to have good training in managerial skills, leadership, and facilitation of productive teamwork in an environment of constant multitasking. Information and communication technology (ICT) can play a crucial role and officers should not consider costs only in the short-term, but put them into the perspective of middle- and long-term benefits. The diplomacy of small states can stay focused around the principle of transforming challenges into opportunities. This principle is especially important for the very small states. States with a population exceeding 1 million certainly have advantages over those with only a few thousand inhabitants. In between there are those with over 100 000 inhabitants. It is in this last category that relative wealth plays a considerable role. Thus Malta with 400 000 inhabitants has bee able to set up a diplomatic apparatus that compares favourably with that of Jamaica with 2.5 million inhabitants. One reason for this may be that until its entry into the European Union Malta had to act very much on its own, whereas Jamaica can operate within the framework of CARICOM and other regional institutions. This practically forced Malta to have important diplomatic resources. Another interesting comparison is between Malta and Ireland. The latter has played an important diplomatic role, particularly within the UN framework. But even very much smaller Malta has been able to initiate a major international development by launching the concept of the seabed beyond national jurisdiction as constituting a Common Heritage of Mankind. Multilateral diplomacy serves a special opportunity for the diplomacy of small states; it also presents a significant threat. On the one hand, multilateral institutions give the possibility of voicing one’s position as much to small states as to large ones--at least for the most part. On the other hand, the gap between possibility and reality is quite large. A proliferation of international regimes has provided security to small states by bringing a degree of predictability through law, but it has also created so many bodies that small states--and even middle-sized states--find it impossible to be present in all or even most of them. Looking only at the UN system, and even specifically this year’s General Assembly agenda, for instance, 154 items appear on it. By the end of January, 255 UN General Assembly 3
resolutions had been proposed. Looking at a broader UN map, 38 principal offices are scattered around the world in 19 cities, in 17 countries. Some 2700 NGOs are accredited to ECOSOC only, each one with a distinct, single priority. How is it possible for a small country to keep up with all of this? Without doubt, this international system is out of control for most states, and especially for small states. The lessons that come of a project concentrating on the diplomacy of small states will indeed have many insights and lessons for diplomacy in general. A question deserving of further research was posed, whether commonalities can be found within the process of proliferation, or whether each process is so unique that small states will always be at a disadvantage. At first glance, differences stood out in different areas. In trade, perhaps the direction has been toward consolidation. In environmental processes, however, proliferation has certainly been the case and this is, according to some, because of the sovereign status of international conventions and the rigidity that is one aspect of that status. A treaty may indeed have a greater legal significance; but, perhaps something looser, a simple programme, might be a more effective way to solve a given issue and certainly easier to follow by a small state. In terms of conventional diplomatic representation, especially in the diplomatic arena, it might be concluded that small states have the capacity to push innovative and creative ideas, but do not have the capacity to follow through with them. When an idea is of global significance, nevertheless, the agents that can push it through increase exponentially. Recently, conventional representation has been greatly enhanced with many older ideas, whose time has come, as well as with new ideas and technologies pushing their way onto the stage. Honorary Consulates, Non-Resident Ambassadors, Virtual Embassies, and Consulates--all these are concepts and tools that can significantly enhance the diplomacy of small states in many varied ways. The Honorary Consul is a cost-efficient and effective way for small states to represent themselves more deeply and widely, especially when considering that a physical diplomatic presence remains crucial and will continue to be so. As nationals and residents in their own country--which another government has empowered them to represent--they have the goodwill of both governments. They may often circumvent some limitations of protocol and be even more effective than diplomats proper. Another alternative for small state diplomatic representation, which may be used to great effect in combination with honorary consuls, is the non-resident ambassador. Singapore is a fertile case worth the research in its use of nonresident ambassadors. Diplomatic Training Diplomatic training is a costly affair for small states, especially the microstates. The modern diplomat, aside from having traditional diplomatic skills, must also have good managerial skills and be an empowering leader, able to focus on the right information without becoming overwhelmed by a surplus of information. Of course, the increasingly complex international environment cannot be underestimated. In recent years, the use of ICT for various educational purposes has changed the circumstances significantly. Information and communication flows have become more manageable, training more cost-effective and flexible. On-line learning allows courses to be tailored to a specific need, and very quickly. It allows addressing a widely dispersed audience, all of whom may be invited to pool their knowledge, sharing their experience with each other instead of waiting for a broadcast of knowledge by a teacher. In this way, future teachers with a sharing attitude are formed, aware of the benefits of shared learning; this process helps develop local expertise at every point, rather than creating dependencies. It also builds epistemic communities of the participants who can always contact each other in the future. Most important, perhaps, is the fact that participants may take on-line courses while still on the job. The personal aspect of training will never be transcended. Face-to-face learning will not be dethroned easily, nor should it. Blended learning is thus a highly effective option, combining the best aspects of ICT-facilitated and live learning. Another option for small states is to use the diplomatic corps sent to its capital to organise seminars that include them as trainers. Such seminars certainly create public diplomacy value for the sending embassies, which may go even further and fund bringing in their own nationals for training purposes. This can build a 4
costly programme by increments. Given the importance of multilateral institutions and international regimes for small states, training for effective work within them has a high importance. The secretariats of multilateral institutions can be good partners for such training and study trips. One does not become a diplomat by studious learning only. Becoming a diplomat requires exposure to diplomatic processes. The overall diplomacy of a state is enhanced if the state conceives of a programme that strategically shifts young diplomatic personnel between different embassies and missions, saturating them with as much knowledge in as little time as possible. Just-in-time learning focusing only on knowledge needed for a particular purpose can produce a great benefit before postings. Diplomatic Tools and Services Diplomatic tools depend on their use; diplomatic services are more specific. Both are always subject to creative adaptation to the specific needs of small states. Negotiation, for instance, considered in general terms, is ground for tremendous creativity. Small states entering in negotiations may be at a disadvantage from the beginning--especially in a one-to-one setting with a larger state--simply due to fewer resources, less information, less specialised staff to serve different phases of the negotiations, and other similar factors. Even so, however, small states need not be disadvantaged. Clarity of purpose, based on real needs and on a welldeveloped strategy, increases the chances of a positive outcome. In multilateral environments, knowledge of procedures is crucial in the beginning phases of processes, yet the reaching of an agreement need not signal the end of negotiation efforts, as the growing literature on â€œcompliance bargainingâ€? shows. Small states involved in negotiations may best be advised to follow a win-win approach in their negotiations, since this approach fosters the greatest goodwill for the long-term, essential for the welfare and security of a small state. Public diplomacy may also be considered a diplomatic tool that can give a competitive advantage to a small country. Nevertheless, for public diplomacy to be successful, it needs to have a product first. Domestic governance is a part of the public diplomacy agenda--and viceversa--since having the right mix of economic and social policies makes a country attractive. In this sense, public diplomacy has a corrective feedback effect toward the sending state and may even serve in its nation building. However, small states should be aware that public diplomacy, and especially branding, costs considerably. If a countryâ€™s ministry of foreign affairs is small and consumed with day-to-day tasks of diplomacy, it should let another agency do the tasks of public diplomacy and offer help if needed. Another task that some countries may classify as a luxury due to limited resources, yet which is, in fact, quite crucial is crisis management and maintaining a general preparedness for crises in other places in the world. Crisis management should be one of the core duties of the consular work of all states, large as well as small. When a crisis occurs, the consular team should remain focused, be flexible, and act fast. Yet, as important as quick reaction to a sudden crisis may be, prevention and contingency planning is more important. This is the role of crisis management teams and one of their prime tasks may be issuing regular travel advice and emergency advisories for the public. Keeping the lines of communication open in any emergency is most important and domestic and international networks with relevant agencies should be established. Appropriate use of ICT can be very productive in establishing and strengthening any such networks. Large states that have more resources operate intricate and large centres for crisis management; although small states cannot afford such centres, they should not shy away from their responsibility to be the line between their citizens abroad and their own country--especially in times of emergency. Regional and Group Aspects of Small State Diplomacy The best prospects for the diplomacy of any small state to play a constructive role occur within a regional context or through coalitions and groupings based around a need. Need is a unifying factor and countries within a region face similar needs, but not only, since there are countries that have many similarities, including similar needs, but are in different parts of the world. Small island developing states are an example. The regions or structures briefly examined here are the European Union (EU), the Caribbean and the South Pacific, ending with a discussuion on the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). 5
A positive aspect for small states that are members, or candidate members, of the EU, or for small states that have to deal with the EU, is that EU structures are set up so large states cannot exploit small states. Power and size have a constrained role. For instance, the Exclusive Right of Initiative that the European Commission holds ensures this balance; the Commission will not put forward anything that may be detrimental to a small member state. The Qualified Majority voting is another mechanism that ensures that small states cannot be exploited, since an overweight of small states occurs in the European Parliament as well as the courts. The Right of Veto is another potential instrument, but surely one that should be used very wisely by any state, since it can quickly create many ill feelings that can last for quite some time. Dealing with the EU from within is the most effective way for outside states to have influence (by lobbying the majority of small member states, for instance), but it is also beneficial to internal and external parties since political activity within the EU balances itself between domestic governance and diplomacy. The EU prides itself on its multilateralism and this provides a good portal for influence. Negotiating with the EU, especially for membership, is done easiest when the other party impresses that there is truly a problem; once that is done, the negotiations are on their way to a solution. *** The Caribbean is a region of many small states. Individually, they are generally weak. However, associative group diplomacy gives the region strength and a competitive advantage, and is thus essential to the region’s diplomatic effectiveness. Many successful examples attest to the success of associative diplomacy: the Caribbean Single Market and Economy; the Caribbean Court of Justice; the Cricket World Cup, located in nine CARICOM countries, and the “Single Domestic Space” principle arising from it. The Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery (CRNM) is a decade-old institution also worth examination. Those who view this institution from outside think highly of it, but those within seem to have a different view. It is essential to understand that the CRNM is a technical organisation, although it should, by definition, “spearhead and coordinate a cohesive [and] coherent regional trading policy, both strategically and on technical issues under negotiation” (from CRNM’s website, found here). The CRNM does not have such policy coherence and, although declaring itself as an intergovernmental organisation, it does not have any power; more importantly, to highlight the largest problem of the model, it does not take into account the interests of the people of the region. Another problem compounding the complexity of issues around the CRNM is that the region is engaged in many simultaneous negotiations-with the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the EU, within the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and so on--negotiating economic partnership agreements and additional bilateral agreements. The question was posed: why these negotiations are going on at the same time? Perhaps the CARICOM countries, individually and collectively, should not even be involved in some of them? National positions and interests have caused dissent. The international whaling issue, currently under debate, has certainly highlighted discord. Upfront reconciliation among the members of the grouping of the positions of all constituent parts must take place. To do this, the CARICOM countries must avoid the temptation to create additional bodies, and must use existing bodies and place additional personnel into a regional negotiating body and work toward a coherent and compact foreign policy. A political union of differing forms have been proposed and even attempted in the Caribbean several times since the 1960s, with many failures, but also a few success. During the conference, a union was suggested similar to the EU in some aspects, but for the South Pacific island states. This region is responsible for an immense area, which may be either its greatest strength or its greatest weakness, depending on circumstances. Regional institutions should be formed, such as a regional diplomatic training facility, and even more engaging institutions. *** The last item under discussion when considering aspects of group diplomacy was AOSIS. Several facts: AOSIS currently has 43 members, 37 of which are members of the UN. It functions effectively in New York where the representatives of the countries are grouped in the same building, sharing resources and dividing issues among them. It does not have a 6
budget, or a secretariat; it is a lobby group within the G77. The unifying factor for this group was climate change. Very vocal, AOSIS has pushed the idea that those countries that contribute most to climate change should do most to curb it. However, it did not succeed in establishing this concept of liability. Its lawyers, who formulate and pushed this concept, were not for the greatest part AOSIS countries’ nationals. Some saw fault in the fact that most of them were drawn from countries directly the target of the concept of liability; some of these lawyers, even, being part of organisations funded by the governments of those states. On the other hand, one professor from the University of California represented Nauru within the climate change discussions and did so very effectively. Possibilities for expert representation are worth consideration by small states, especially the very small. The issue was raised with regard to specialist lawyers, but could be easily expanded to other types of experts. Basically having recourse to international experts when local ones are not available is certainly a good thing. The important point is to select the right ones, i.e. specialists not beholden directly or indirectly to other players with different objectives. Experts offering their services or being offered by other actors should thus be vetted very carefully. Today it is easy to find names and CVs of specialists and experts on the Internet and to contact them directly. Such an approach should be encouraged. AOSIS should be given credit for recognising the danger of climate change and acting on it quite early. However, critical views emerged during the conference. It would have, perhaps, been in the favour of the alliance if “small” had been emphasised more than “island.” If “economically small” had been included from the beginning or, more specifically, “least developed,” this coalition could have had a hundred members. Similarly, it could have acted from within the G77 and so put climate change fully on the international agenda earlier. However, this may have drowned the issue among many others and considerably delayed it being taken up seriously. The lesson would appear to be that joint action is essential, but that those joining in such action be of the same single-minded approach to the issue at hand. Acting as a smaller but homogeneous group has shown to be more effective than delayed action within a larger group. A few conclusions regarding AOSIS: it works quite well, if it keeps to its agenda and to the common needs of the membership. When thinking of other coalitions, say the Arab League, one is reminded that though the “Arab” connection unites it, it often does not have a common economic agenda from which to draw for negotiations. AOSIS has this advantage. AOSIS actions form a part of the process leading toward the Kyoto protocol and empowering it once in existence. Aside from additions to the UN system in terms of legal entities of various kinds, however, what concrete results has AOSIS achieved, especially regarding the problems small island states face? A common feeling was expressed in the discussion that what is currently happening globally regarding climate change is the response to problems that bigger countries face--problems that have now converged with those of small countries. AOSIS has been a counter-balance to developed economies that did not want to take too much action on climate change for fear of ill effects on their economies. It has also been a counter-balance to oil-exporting countries. AOSIS members played a useful diplomatic role and certainly “punched way beyond their weight.” However, to ascribe any particular role to AOSIS beyond this would be difficult.
PART II: THE WAY FORWARD The International Conference on the Diplomacy of Small States was the first step, as indicated in the beginning of this Report, of a project that contains a variety of activities. It provided not only space to exchange ideas, but also many aspects that help steer the direction of the project overall. The discussion of the conference has thus filtered into a set of general principles of small state diplomacy, outlined areas of research that can be a part of the project and a comprehensive compendium of project outcomes.
3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR THE DIPLOMACY OF SMALL STATES We Live in a Small State World. o Normative Structures of Today’s World Support Small Countries o UN Charter: “Sovereign Equality of States” 7
To Have a Coherent Foreign Policy is Important, but to Have a Coherent Diplomacy is Most Important for a Small State. Identify the Country’s Specific Competitive Advantage. Be Empathetic o Small countries have to empathise with large countries to see where they are heading. o Small countries need to empathise with all countries to be persuasive and, for this, need to know issues from the inside. Always be Alert to “Patterns of Relevance.” Physical Presence is Still Important, Especially for Small States. o This need not be achieved through traditional diplomatic ways. Such concepts as the non-resident ambassador, honorary consul, and the virtual embassy can be of assistance. Personal Relations are Crucial. Be Persistent if Something is Important, but Cleverly. o Involve the Diaspora. o Know the rules of procedure intimately. Joint diplomatic action should be composed of countries and other political entities that share the same single-minded approach to the issue at hand. Acting as a smaller but homogeneous group has shown to be more effective than delayed action within a larger group. Public Diplomacy Principles o Identify your state o Distinguish it o Determine your assets o Determine your latent allies o Make an objective assessment of your image o Strategise o Brainstorm and then decide on a coherent message. One Single Message o Locate a niche that will help you. o Reach out to home publics, because your external image will not work unless home publics, home institutions, civil society (NGOs, educational institutions, tourism authorities, business) are in accord with it. Small States Involved in Negotiations Should Aim for a Win-Win Outcome. o Such an approach nurtures long-term goodwill that is essential to the welfare and security of small states. Hiring international experts when local ones are not available should be encouraged, though these experts should be carefully selected to avoid those that have latent interests vested with groups that hold different aims and priorities. Transform Challenges into Opportunities.
4. POSSIBLE AREAS OF RESEARCH Globalisation, decreasing sovereignty, and small states Relationship between the growth of multilateral institutions and the growth in number of small states o Have small states driven a multilateral context? o Have small states driven the importance of multilateral institutions? Challenges and vulnerabilities in the diplomacy of small states Climate change and the diplomacy of small states Energy issues and the diplomacy of small states Small state diplomatic success stories Commonalities of negotiation with a norm-setting organisation o The EU, for instance o “Harmonisation without representation” o Large countries have an advantage in more lawyers and resources o Small states are often not present in the creation of the norm-setting institutions, but are then bound by them Compliance bargaining Asymmetric negotiations 8
“The imperative model of diplomatic representation” AOSIS Law of the sea Exclusive economic zone Forum of Small States (FOSS) The Small States Network Transaction costs in the diplomacy of small states The physiological aspect of diplomatic activity and small state diplomats o Jet lag o Sleep deprivation o Dehydration Use of indices in small state diplomacy o Vulnerability o Resilience Profiles of extraordinary diplomats from small states
5. PROJECT OUTCOMES:
Events Confirmed Events: Geneva Diplomatic Training Event (29 March 2007) – Multilateral Negotiation Training for Small State Diplomats Geneva Workshop (date TBA)-- Small States and Multilateral Diplomacy Brussels Event (date TBA)-- Small States and the EU Opening of the Virtual Institute on Small States in Second Life (date TBA) Other possible events: Training events in the Caribbean and/or the Pacific London event Event in a UN city, other than Geneva (perhaps Nairobi) Workshop in a small island state (exploring the specificities in the diplomacy of small island states) Workshop in a small landlocked state Event in Washington, DC (highlighting the Bretton Woods system as a core aim in the diplomacy of small states)
Related Activities Web site: www.diplomacy.edu/smallstates 100 diplomats trained A Portal containing systematic research into the diplomacy of small states Diplomacy of small states publication (published in spring 2008) Tools for communication within network: firstname.lastname@example.org www.diplomacy.edu/smallstates/ Toolkit for the small state diplomat (consisting of): Relevant international laws A map of the world of multilateral diplomacy Principles (see in “Discussions”) Media kit Crisis management kit Negotiations kit Code of ethics of an honorary consul 9
On-line translators A kit with possible diplomatic strategies for small states Second Life Activities Virtual institute on small state diplomacy within Second Life Diplomatic Island The Advisor to diplomats from small states (an avatar in Second Life; gives policyneutral advice to asynchronously posed questions) Meeting room for honorary consuls from around the world Meeting room for small state diplomats Creation of a general profile of a modern small state diplomat in â€œMy Spaceâ€? Solid education Sees many things at the same time Both desk officer and diplomat Both policy advisor and implementer Very flexible Knows the little facets of diplomacy Efficient use of ICT Profiles/memoirs of extraordinary small state diplomats* Bruno Kreisky Arvid Pardo [*There can be a forum on each person posted here, so others may post their thoughts]