Abstract
Chapter 11 introduces protocol guidelines that can open many doors and place an NGO ahead of others for donations and political influence. Emphasis is placed on how to invite government officials to NGO-sponsored events and how to comport oneself in order to gain the best results. A basic concept is that in meetings, parties, conferences, and other events, the NGO representative is considered the symbolic representative of his or her organization in the same way as an Ambassador of a country and to an extent is a symbol of all NGOs. The representative never acts along but on behalf of the NGO. Although protocol rules can seem artificial at times, they can be used to impress donors and policy makers. That’s the goal of this chapter: impress officialdom.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
One approach around the problem of repeating confidential information is to resort to Chatham House Rules, but keep in mind that officials often “do repeat.”
- 2.
The companion book published by Springer on Diplomacy and Animal Welfare offers suggestions on humane standards.
- 3.
Multilateral negotiations in the UN system, the World Bank, and the IFRC are generally in English, though the UN’s official languages are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish. The working languages of the General Assembly are English, French, and Spanish (in the Security Council, only English and French are working languages), which is why those are really the only two languages needed when meeting with delegations to the UN in Geneva and New York. But different organizations have different rules.
- 4.
When Roeder represented a British NGO in Tunis for negotiations with the Arab League and the Association of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the discussions were entirely in Arabic, with simultaneous English interpretation, but IFRC talks in Geneva were in English with French and Arabic interpretation.
- 5.
“Interpreters” work with the spoken word and “translators” work with the written word.
- 6.
In this context, one of the interesting things highlighted by one of the surveys used in this book for research was the variety of language used for by the NGOs we contacted. While 70 % spoke English as a primary language, followed by Spanish, French, Arabic, and Portuguese, a lot of local languages were also primary. This illuminates several issues. For one thing, some of those NGOs will have trouble communicating in the UN or other international forums unless they have on staff someone who speaks a major UN language like English, which is sort of a lingua franca. But alternatively, they provide a rich tapestry of tongues that can be used to better understand the needs of local culture yet another reason for fully integrating them into the discussion on international rules. Many of the lesser used language are actually very important global languages, e.g., Russian, Italian, Greek, Swedish, Dutch, and Norwegian. Other languages were Navajo, Bahasa, Bosnian, Catalan, Estonian, Hindi, Marathi, Telugu, and others (IFR 2010a, October).
- 7.
MSF reserves the right to speak out to bring attention to neglected crises, to challenge inadequacies or abuse of the aid system, and to advocate for improved medical treatments and protocols. MSF medical teams often witness violence, atrocities, and neglect in the course of their work, largely in regions that receive scant international attention. At times, MSF may speak out publicly in an effort to bring a forgotten crisis to public attention, to alert the public to abuses occurring beyond the headlines, to criticize the inadequacies of the aid system, or to challenge the diversion of humanitarian aid for political interests (Tronc 2012).
- 8.
This was a serious issue at the start of the League of Nations discussions, with the Swiss insisting that the League have no authority over internal affairs (Miller, Meetings With the Neutral Powers, 1928).
References
Abshire, D. B. (2005). The character of George Marshal. Lexington, VA: Washington and Lee University.
Ad Hoc Working Group on Informatics. (2010, June 13). United Nations members states. Retrieved from Permanent Missions to the United Nations: http://www.un.int/index-en/index.html
Associated Press. (2010, September 26). US: Inverted Philippine flag was ‘honest mistake’. Retrieved 2010, from Yahoo News: www.yahoo.com
Bartholdt, R. (1930). From steerage to congress. Philadelphia: Dorrance.
Boritz, M. (1998). The hidden culture of diplomatic practice. Ethnologia Scandinavica, 28, 48–62.
Boritz, M. (2010, September 21). Email discussion on diplomatic practice. (L. Roeder, Interviewer).
Cambon, J. (1931). The diplomatist. (C. R. Turner, Trans.) Philip Allan.
Denza, E. (2008a). Diplomatic law, commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fenzi, J., & Nelson, C. L. (1994). Married to the foreign service. New York: Twayne.
French, M. M. (2010). United States protocol. New York: Roman and Little Fittlefield.
House, E. M. (1926). Conversation with the Chancellor of Germany. In C. Seymour (Ed.), Intimate papers of colonel house (p. 142). New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Jordan, R. (2012, August 8). Discussion on security. (L. Roeder, Interviewer).
Joyce, J. A. (1978). Broken star. Llandybie, Wales: Davies.
Lamont, T. W. (1921). Reparations. In E. M. House & C. Seymour (Eds.), What really happened at Paris (pp. 259–291). New York: Scribners.
Leki, R. (2007). Protocol for the modern diplomat. Washington, DC: Foreign Service Institute.
Protocol and Liaison Service, United Nations. (2010). The United Nations Flag Code- ST/SGB/132. Retrieved from Protocol and Liaison Service: http://www.un.int/protocol/communication.html
McCaffree, M. J., & Innis, P. (1977). Protocol: The complete handbook of diplomatic, official and social usage. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Miller, D. H. (1928b). The drafting of the covenant. New York: Putnam.
Morrin, J. (2010, July 24). Interview by Email with Joanna Morrini, Ceremonial Office, Protocol Directorate, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. (L. Roeder, Interviewer).
MSF. (2011, December 1). About MSF. Retrieved March 8, 2012, from MSF: http://www.msf.org/
Nash, G. (1988b). The life of Herbert Hoover: The humanitarian 1914–1917. New York: Norton.
Reagan, R. (1985). Document 208: Current travails of the people of Poland, May 1, 1983. In D. o. State (Ed.), American Foreign Policy, 1983 (pp. 505–506). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Roeder, L. (1983, March). US policy option on high-tech exports to the Soviet Union. World Affairs Monthly Retreat. Seattle/Washington, DC: World Affairs Council.
Tronc, E. (2012, March 22). Discussion about MSF. (L. Roeder, Interviewer).
UN. (2005, May 29). News and media. Retrieved July 2011, from United Nations: http://www.unmultimedia.org/photo/detail.jsp?id=769/76989&key=11&query=cattle&sf=
UNGA. (1991, December 19). Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian emergency assistance of the UN (UNGA Resolution A/46/182). New York: UN.
Wheeler, T. (2012, June 3). About diplomacy. (L. Roeder, Interviewer).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roeder, L.W., Simard, A. (2013). Protocol. In: Diplomacy and Negotiation for Humanitarian NGOs. Humanitarian Solutions in the 21st Century. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7113-4_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7113-4_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7112-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7113-4
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)