The changing role of diplomats

Bilateral and multilateral diplomatic structures are embedded in the international order, but the negotiation and subsequent adoption of the SDGs have led to important changes in how multilat- eral diplomacy is practised. Instead of being concerned mainly with representation, diplomacy has now become, together with communication, a key tool for the management of transformational global change and social engagement, including the handling of complex relationships.

Diplomacy is now a critical element of global governance. Diplomats must connect both issues and actors, at the national and global level alike. The function of a foreign ministry has shifted from that of a gatekeeper overseeing all official contacts at the international level towards being the coordina- tor and enabler of a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach, as more and more of a country’s ministries engage in international affairs and its civil society organizations become ever more internationally minded. This also means that many more individuals are engaged in diplomacy outside the circle of professional diplomats. As one saying puts it, “Nowadays everyone is a diplomat”.

Embassies and other diplomatic missions engage to a much greater extent than before in outreach, dialogue and relationship building, and diplomats must be able to interact with a wide range of traditionally non diplomatic actors at home and abroad, practising bilateral, multilateral and multi-stakeholder diplomacy – often at the same time and on the same issues. Foreign ministry officials must keep abreast with national policy developments and with the increasingly global ac- tivities of other ministries, many of which now have their own international departments and are expanding the scope of their activities – for example, to participate in the SDG implementation process. In many cases, the health ministries have had to expand their departments for internation- al or global health. In the Geneva context, it is worth noting that governments may send different types of representatives to WHO and for the conduct of health negotiations: foreign ministry repre- sentatives in some cases, health ministry representatives in others, or from both ministries in yet other cases. The composition of a Member State’s delegation ultimately determines whether diplo- macy is being practised to advance health objectives, or vice versa. Finding the right balance is essential for national delegations and institutions such as WHO.

A further important representation and negotiation mechanism has emerged through the establish- ment of the G7 and the G20, namely the “sherpa” system. Sherpas are the personal representatives of the Heads of State or Government of the countries in these two groupings — career diplomats or senior government officials appointed by each leader to represent their country’s interests and participate in the extensive series of consultations needed to prepare all summits. There is only one sherpa per G7 or G20 member. Sherpas are in turn supported by “sous sherpas”: diplomats and experts from the same country who have been assigned to work on specific agenda items (now also

including health) as part of the working groups established for the various preparatory meetings.

The SDG process and the global challenges of our times require diplomats to assume a dual respon- sibility: to promote their country’s interest and to advance the interests of the global community. As has repeatedly become clear in such areas as health and the environment, there is a need to devel- op an approach that safeguards certain “global public goods”, or “global commons”. This applies, for example, to the climate agenda or to the call for COVID-19 vaccines to be available to all people.

Such common goods need to be protected jointly and managed in a manner that enables them to benefit everyone and make sustainable development a reality, despite the unilateral approaches chosen by some States. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this has been exemplified by what is often referred to as “vaccine diplomacy”, which seeks to establish a mechanism that will ensure equita- ble access to a COVID-19 vaccine on a global scale, as opposed to “vaccine nationalism”. (See Chapter 13 for further examples of global health diplomacy.)

Heads of State and Government are acquiring higher visibility in relation to key global issues. In- creasingly, they are using summitry to shape agendas and prestige diplomacy to underscore their engagement. For example, the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, and the former Prime Min- ister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, have both distinguished themselves by raising global health issues at many high-level political forums, such as G20 and G7 summits. Japan played a key role in this re- spect by using its G20 presidency in 2019 to promote universal health coverage.

Diplomacy is increasingly expected to be more citizen-centric and to deliver value not only to a country’s citizens at home but also to the global community through the country’s efforts abroad and in international organizations. Heads of State and Government are more frequently making use of social media for outreach purposes, with some relying on “Twitter diplomacy” not only to posi- tion themselves vis-à-vis their electorate but also to secure an international audience and be able to move agendas forward. More recently, the President of China, Xi Jinping, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, The President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin and the President of the Republic of Korea, Moon Jae in, have all practised “corona diplomacy”, reaching out to a wide range of countries by providing them with support in the form of medical supplies. They have effectively been engaging in what has been termed a “soft-power race”.

All this implies a changing role – indeed sometimes a weaker role – for foreign ministries and dip- lomats. At the same time, most foreign ministers, ambassadors and representations (missions to the UN in New York or Geneva) now have their own social media accounts and are thereby able to communicate their intentions, policies and outcomes more widely. This type of engagement is a new form of public diplomacy.

CHAPTER 2 | GLOBAL