Despite the rise of a large number of actors in the foreign policy process and the widening of foreign policy bureaucracies, the foreign ministry and the diplomatic corps of states, what Hocking (2004: 148) terms the national diplomatic system (NDS)21 constitute in most cases22, the core elements23 of the national foreign policy machinery with which governments pursue their policies overseas. In this light, the objective of the present and the following sections is to consider the role and responses of the foreign ministry in the context of its rapidly changing operational environment due to pressures exercised by the transformative forces of globalisation and regionalism24. Research on foreign ministries and the systems of diplomatic representation over which they preside suggests different national responses. The overview of such responses is employed for purposes of guiding through the exploration of the Greek MFA.
The contemporary policy environment raises a number of questions regarding the relevance of the foreign ministry. This, traditionally located at the boundary of two linked systems,25 the national and international (Steiner, 1982), and organised around geographical and functional divisions which reflect the national/international divide is undergoing serious mutation in the majority of states (Hocking, 2002; 1999: viii). The contemporary ‘borderless world’ (Waltz, 1999; Keohane and Nye, 1977) has triggered discussions about the foreign ministry’s
21
The term national diplomatic system refers to nationally based systems of diplomatic
representation comprising overseas missions –both bilateral and multilateral- overseen by a central government department, traditionally designated as the ‘foreign ministry’ (Hocking, 2004: 148).
22
For instance, neither in Malaysia (Ahmad, 1999) nor in Israel (Klieman, 1999) is the foreign ministry a major or central agency. It is viewed rather as an auxiliary tool in policy making 23
Despite traditional and stereotypical views regarding the role of the MFA, research has shown that there is significant variation with regards to their origins and roles or even their political and bureaucratic status. In some occasions, MFAs lie on commerce logic rather than on a political one, despite expectations for the contrary. In other occasions it seems that again despite stereotypes, MFAs do not occupy the tip of domestic bureaucratic architectures.
24
Whereas it is very difficult to distinguish between the implications of one and the other it has to be noted that in two specific areas, coordination of sectoral policies and CFSP, the pressures stemming from the EU context have been distinct. Although some could argue that demands for policy coordination are equally intensive in international policy
25
On the one hand it is part of a global diplomatic network and on the other it is an element of what Hocking terms the national diplomatic system.
relevance in the emergent globalised policy milieus (Ahmad, 1999: 117). The changing nature of international relations which are moving towards patterns of horizontal organisation, joint responses to transboundary problems in order to protect citizens’ welfare at home and abroad, the reshuffling between foreign and economic policy, handling instant financial transfers and dealing with international crises have challenged the foreign ministry’s capacity to deal with such issues alone (Langhorne, 2000: 43).
Further complexity is added as foreign policy embraces the implications of international activity for national citizens and domestic politics (Wesley, 2002: 209) greater emphasis on humanitarian issues and the elevation of the importance of socio-economic activities (Held and McGrew, 2002: 1; Langhorne, 2000: 34). The growth in the policy domains that foreign policy bureaucracies are handling and the domestic entities drawn into the foreign policy process have questioned the monopoly of the foreign ministry over national management of international policy (Bátora , 2009; Bertram, 2009; Hocking, 2007; 2003; 1999; Hill, 2003: 4; Allen, 2002; 1999; Ahmad, 1999: 117; Enjalran and Husson, 1999: 60; Harris, 1999: 27; Langhorne and Wallace, 1999: 21; Rozental, 1999: 137).
Such developments coupled with the diminishing monopoly of the foreign ministry over communications due its inability to process the available vast amounts of information suggest a decline in the centrality of the foreign ministry within the national foreign policy machinery26 (Bátora, 2009). In a state of affairs whereby foreign ministries are overworked, their resources are diminishing and responsibility of international affairs is diffused across a large number of government departments (Hill, 2003; Langhorne, 2000: 43) we are witnessing what Langhorne (2000: 43) has termed the ‘dismantling of the autonomous foreign ministry’. Such developments have challenged the status of foreign ministries vis-
26
It is true that there are cases where the MFA does not hold a central role in the national foreign policy system. In Malaysia the MFA is not considered as major or central agency rather the locus of foreign policy decision making has shifted towards the PM something which has altered the whole government machinery. Still the involvement of other departments in policy making had been minimal until the late 1990s (Ahmad, 1999: 125)
à-vis other parts of the bureaucracy thus exerting pressures to redefine its position (Hill, 2003: 14; Wesley, 2002).
Despite realisations that in an era of complex interdependence the management of interstate relations no longer constitutes the exclusive domain of ministries of foreign affairs (Keohane and Nye, 1989) –if it ever did- research findings to date suggest that in most cases, the foreign ministry still holds a leading role, and in some countries a strengthening role27 amidst the national foreign policy architecture. A common denominator underlying all national foreign policy institutions is that their foreign ministries and diplomats find themselves operating in an environment characterised by expanded horizontal networks which bends, if not breaks, rules and orders of the past, thus ‘globalising’ their role (Hocking, 2005: 3).
As previously noted while questions of territorial or spatial integrity and borders still matter, the compartmentalisation of administrative responsibilities within vertically defined national foreign policy domains is no longer possible (Cooper, 2001: 114) thus challenging the organisational structure of the traditional foreign ministry which relies on hierarchy and verticality. On an analytical level, breaking up the monopoly of the foreign ministry over foreign policy as well as of old and compartmentalised approaches to foreign policy offers the opportunity for a fresh look at the way we handle international relations in a system of global networks, linkages and eroded foreign/domestic divides (Riordan 2003: 9-10) which may suggest new forms of organisation that correspond to contemporary diplomacy and public diplomacy which are more asymmetrical in nature.
Public diplomacy differentiates from other diplomacy in that its influence is exerted to host governments indirectly, that is via channels other than official government to government channels, notably via the press, mass media communication, the Internet and also through specialised networks such as businesses, trade unions, scholarly associations and religious or other institutions and affiliations (Henrikson,
27
2006: 8). Public diplomacy, which is less a new chapter in foreign policy than an element of foreign policy which has become prominent with the increased role of the public in the affairs of state and the proliferation of mechanisms of communication (Cull, 2008: 17), has significant implications for foreign ministries’ diplomatic networks.
The overseas diplomatic network and the diplomatic profession in the context of public diplomacy
In the wider discussion of rearrangement of national foreign policy machineries, the re-thinking and re-organising of overseas diplomatic missions occupies a significant part. Diplomatic missions, the nerve endings of the foreign policy machinery, are faced with a number of challenges which call for their rethinking and reorganisation (Blue Ribbon Panel Report, 2009; Gyngell and Wesley, 2003: 122). This is because the information revolution and globalisation have placed great demands on diplomatic networks as the spreading of multilateralism and the increasing number of organisations require regular attendance and monitoring (Wesley, 2002: 219). The increased requirements for speed and effectiveness and the large amounts of information have configured the relationship between the foreign ministry and the overseas missions, giving the latter an enhanced role in formulation of foreign policy (Hocking, 2004b: 98, Wesley, 2002: 217, Ikenberry, 1986) whilst posing pressing demands for re-arrangement and re-organisation. Foreign ministries are now expected to be closer to their nationals (Harris, 1999: 27), to take on an active role within domestic and foreign communities and develop direct channels of communication with civil society and a number of stakeholders28
(FCO report on Consular Strategy, 2007; Hocking, 2007: 10) as well as to promote their business communities in foreign markets (Foreign Ministry of Denmark, 2006: 9, 11). This, in turn, has altered the agenda and structure of overseas missions. More specifically, such expectations exert pressures for a renewed role for
28
For a list of stakeholders in the UK see FCO report, Delivering change together: The Consular Strategy 2007-2010: 31.
embassies and consular missions (Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Consular Strategy, 2007; Foreign Ministry of Denmark, 2006: 13), the operation and functions of which are in a process of change towards directions of promoting the entirety of governmental policy overseas. Embassies at the turn of the century have been described as becoming more like governmental offices rather than foreign ministry offices (Cooper, 2001) or else as ‘off shore government hubs’ with the whole of government being represented abroad thus raising questions with regards to the monopoly of the foreign ministry in representation (Blue Ribbon Panel Report, 2009: 37).
And whilst missions focus on a whole new range of activities such as boosting economic and other governmental policies overseas, public diplomacy has gained significant prominence (Bátora, 2003: 117). Public diplomacy, having become a core element of foreign policy (Cull, 2008: 17) and reflecting a government strategy to influence the public, has become a top priority for missions abroad (Srivihok, 2007: 66) and the main axis for their re-organisation (Rana, 2007: 30-31; Melissen, 2005; Paschke, 2000). This is because even though overseas missions were considered to be the most well informed networks in comparison to outside counterparts, they may be less so today as they are challenged by IT and non- governmental networks which seem to be broader, deeper and more comprehensive (Metzl, 2001: 80).
In this spirit of re-organisation of the overseas missions, a new role is also envisaged for the current diplomat. According to the Paschke Report (2000) a new role is awaiting the contemporary ambassador who is now much more than a negotiator and interpreter of a state’s foreign policy interests. The report describes contemporary diplomats as primarily communicators and mediators of national positions vis-à-vis all sections of the politically informed public in their host country. Their main tasks are not limited to confidential dealings with the foreign ministry but rather extend to public diplomacy aimed at explaining and canvassing support for national and international policy among government circles, Parliament, the political parties, the business community, the social partners, the media and
representatives of academic and cultural life. In other words, contemporary diplomats must build up and cultivate a dense and stable network of contacts both world of traditional foreign policy associated with high politics but also with all areas of society thus operating in an environment characterised by expanded horizontal networks (Hocking, 2005: 3).
Traditionalist versus globalist approaches: the gatekeeper – boundary spanner images of the foreign ministry.
Despite the much debated erosion of the domestic-foreign policy divide there is still a tendency to equate foreign with international policy which asserts the boundaries between internal and external policy. Such presumptions become manifest in discussions concerning the foreign ministry. There are primarily two different assumptions regarding the contemporary role of the foreign ministry. The first, concomitant to state-centric approaches to international relations, suggests that the foreign ministry remains the key agent in the state’s bureaucratic apparatus for the conduct of its external relations, signifying the perseverance of intergovernmentalism in the conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy. The second assumption, associated with globalist approaches to world politics, suggests a diminishing role for the foreign ministry following the erosion of the state’s primacy in world politics.
Hocking (2005) has modelled two images of contemporary foreign ministries as components of the national foreign policy administrations. These he terms as ‘gatekeeper’ and ‘boundary spanner’ images, with the latter corresponding more to the emergent global policy environments. The author (Hocking, 2005: 10) describes the gatekeeper image as resting on a number of inter-linked assumptions such as the centrality of the territorial state, the primacy of control of boundaries and the communication flows that cross them. Associated with this is the equation of foreign policy with high policy and the pursuit of an identifiable national interest. In order to retain exclusivity in the management of international policy and having recognised that there are increasing demands for policy
coordination in the diffuse policy environments, foreign ministries have often pursued the role of the coordinator in order to establish their control. It has been observed that foreign policy systems where there is assertion of the foreign ministry’s exclusivity in international policy management with a simultaneous recognition for increased policy coordination are linked to vertical and hierarchical, top-down conceptualisations of coordination. Moreover, in such systems the foreign ministry acquires the role of the dominant foreign policy agency.
The rationale for the boundary spanner model rests on the capacity of the foreign ministry to span boundaries, which themselves are changing in nature by becoming more porous. This porosity has rendered boundaries more penetrable and at the same time more colonised by new agents such as epistemic communities, specialist groups, think tanks, NGOs and others. In such multi- environments boundary spanners, such as contemporary foreign ministries assume the role of mediators thus gaining renewed significance. The two images of the foreign ministry which present the foreign ministry either perceived through traditional foreign policy assumptions or through globalisation/regionalisation perspectives, have triggered debates concerning its relevance in the contemporary environment.
The non-decline versus the decline thesis
The decline thesis is associated with globalisation literature which questions the primacy of the state. It is mostly substantiated in studies of the foreign ministry in the context of the European Union policy milieu. This is because the EU has permanently altered the relationships between member states in that much of what was considered foreign has effectively become domestic resulting in domestic ministries communicating directly with Brussels (Spence, 2005; Langhorne, 2000). In this light, arguments supporting the decline thesis derive from assumptions about the increasing involvement of other government agencies in the foreign policy process and the abrogation of the domestic/foreign divide. More specifically, the foreign ministry is deemed a symbol of the time when national sovereignty was
well defined, international interactions were mostly channelled through official diplomatic networks and high politics issues dominated the foreign policy agenda (Moses and Knutsen, 2001: 356).
The literature suggests that in terms of shaping and implementing international policy, the foreign ministry has not always been the primary agency. In several situations, even in countries with well-developed diplomatic systems, the management of international policy has involved bureaucratic bargaining in which ministries of finance, trade and other ministries as well as prime ministerial offices have competed for pre-eminence (Hocking, 2005: 10). Some countries have also merged their foreign ministries with ministries of trade29 (Berridge, 2005: 17). The involvement of other government departments in multilateral diplomacy and the direct dealings of national administrations officials with their opposite numbers (Wallace, 2008: 22; Moses and Knutsen, 2001) take this argument even further as they question the entire conceptual and organisational rationale of the foreign ministry.
Wallace (2008) argues that for a foreign ministry to be considered in decline, two phenomena must be present, as in the case of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in the UK. Firstly, a state must have a strong international presence and as a result its foreign policy agenda must be dominated by issues of international significance involving many areas of international policy. In such cases the management of international policy would presuppose the involvement of many government departments in policy making and would need complex and robust coordination mechanisms which could be supported by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) or other another coordinating department. Secondly, the state’s foreign policy content would have shifted away from traditional high politics concerns.
As the agenda of diplomacy changes with the issues of high statecraft being displaced by issues which have to do less with the structure of peace and the
29
balance of power, critics contend that we no longer have to entrust the management of external relations and policies to the bureaucratic elite of the foreign ministry (Eayrs, 1982: 96). On the contrary, international issues have to be dealt by the whole state machinery. Arguments about the indisputable increasing importance of the growing foreign policy bureaucracies outside the foreign ministry led to suggestions that the foreign ministry, as a pillar of the old diplomacy is obsolete (Berridge, 2005).
Eayrs (1982: 96) points out that ‘any government could conduct its foreign affairs
without a ministry created expressly for that purpose. Its leaders could rely instead upon their own resources and those of their staffs to supervise and coordinate departments of trade, defence, immigration, agriculture, fisheries and any others doing the country’s business abroad [...] and to attend to any residue that might show up as ‘foreign policy’. As the agenda [...] and level of diplomacy change [...] it is no longer necessary to entrust the management of external relations to an élite sector of the public service’. Similarly others (Bertram, 2009; Cooper, 1999: 41;
Langhorne and Wallace, 1999: 21) suggest that the role of the foreign ministry is challenged to the extent that the rationale for the existence of a department devoted to international issues has been doubted, while radical voices (Moses and Knutsen, 2001) propose a different administrative configuration, such as a small Bureau of Foreign Affairs30 with a mainly coordinating role.
Similar assumptions about the declining role of the foreign ministry derive from literature on ‘new diplomacy’ the centrepiece of which is multilateralism. ‘New diplomacy’, or else transformational or open diplomacy, is associated with a greater emphasis on publicity, summitry and all kinds of direct communication between domestic ministries and thus implies the declining authority of traditional diplomatic machineries and the bypassing of the foreign ministry (Berridge, 2005: Riordan, 2003). The assumptions of new diplomacy, together with associated developments of globalisation and IT, substantiate arguments about the disintermediation of the foreign ministry (Bátora, 2009; Metzl, 2001) as the latter is
30
viewed as just one element of the government’s foreign policy apparatus (Eayrs, 1982: 96). In this light, the current organisation of foreign ministries and their embassies lose their importance as their structures are deemed anachronistic and obsolete.
Nonetheless, critics of the decline thesis characterise assumptions over obsolescence of the foreign ministry as premature. In the context of the EU member states, Allen (1998: 54) argues that even though ‘Brusselsisation’ may be defined as a gradual transfer of policy making authority away from the national capitals to Brussels, this does not mean that foreign ministries are rendered irrelevant. On the contrary, arrangements for common foreign policy making in Brussels rely on national foreign ministries and diplomats.
Spence (2005: 23) takes this argument further and suggests that despite the changing nature of the policy process at the level of the EU and the dispatching of other government department officials to the permanent representations, the heads of the missions are still diplomats and the foreign ministry has control over the mission. For Berridge (2005) the involvement of other government departments in international policy processes signifies the strengthening of the role of the foreign ministry. This is because with foreign ministries being able to leave so