Carne Ross sends a cheery comment on my posting about his article: that I am wrong!

Re-read the article with a bit more care and you will see that I do not advocate the rise of the Bono’s and Soros’s, I simply recognise it.  It is an unarguable truth, acknowledged by many authorities greater than me, that non-state actors are ever more important in foreign affairs.  Some of these are benign, some less so (mafia gangs, self-interested corporations). 

If they are smart, govts will recognise this and work with this trend, building coalitions to achieve their goals.  The less smart ones can stick their heads in the sand, demand like Canute that the tide be reversed, and nod heartily when they read the conclusion of your commentary. 

Hmm. This is what he wrote in his article:

George Soros’s Open Society Institute has in my view been as important as the European Union in fostering civil society and building the pillars of democracy in post-Soviet eastern Europe. The private sector’s foreign direct investment and speculative flows outweigh both official and philanthropic funds, in determining the economic fate of countries.

In global politics, non-governmental movements and influentlial figureheads like Bono are proving almost, although not yet wholly, as important as governments, and according to surveys, are already more trusted.

Carne has not served in countries being supported by the Soros empire. I have. Sure, Soros runs influential and adult NGOs. But to say that eg in Belgrade from 2001-2003 Soros-sponsored efforts were "as important as the EU" (not to mention the US, British, French, Russian and other Embassies) in promoting democracy in post-Milosevic Serbia is over-egging any possible Balkan pudding. Fact.

Is an influential figurehead such as Bono ‘almost as important as governments’? He may be more trusted but that is only because he has no responsibility for anything (hence has nothing to mess up and can say more or less what he likes) and has a vast PR machine linked to the U2 phenomenon behind him. If one has to choose between bi-syllabic names ending in -o to follow on issues related to Africa (and one does), I go for Moyo over Bono:

So what of the rock and Hollywood stars, who have appointed themselves advocates of making poverty history? She is withering: “Most Brits would be irritated if Michael Jackson started offering advice on how to resolve the credit crisis. Americans would be put out if Amy Winehouse went to tell them how to end the housing crisis. I don’t see why Africans shouldn’t be perturbed for the same reasons,” she replies…

Look, of course the world is more fluid and confusing, and of course all sorts of ‘non-state actors’ are busy and significant. And, yes, smart governments should work with the better ones to get more impactful results. In my career I did more of this ‘on the ground’ than Carne ever did (not that this is any criticism of him – he had a different sort of career, and a shorter one!), so I have plenty of operational insight into what works and why and where and how.

My sole forlorn point is that Carne’s feisty article crams too many ideas into one space, and fails to make the basic case he (I think) tries to make, namely that diplomacy as hitherto practised needs somehow to be utterly overhauled to make way for these new and unelected forces.

His article is headlined "It’s time to scrap ambassadors and their embassies". That would open a lively new market for Independent Diplomat. But otherwise it would simply be (mainly) stupid and massively disruptive.

Happy to debate the whole issue publicly with Carne if someone wants to crank up a venue.

Meanwhile I need to write up Bono’s visit to Mostar in December 1997, to tell you all about Celebrity Diplomacy in real live action. Let’s see, …