Parliamentary diplomacy has a vital role in contemporary international relations. More flexible than official diplomacy, represented by foreign ministries and diplomatic bodies, parliamentary diplomacy does not have the status of official political action. Official diplomacy is not bound by parliamentary diplomacy.
Representatives of the people connect with MPs from other countries. They participate in forums, events and activities organized by regional and international parliamentary associations, among which is Inter-Parliamentary Union. In a IPU meeting held recently in Russia, the President of the Kuwaiti National Assembly, Marzouq al-Ghanim, told the delegation of the Israeli Knesset to “get out” from the meeting hall, accusing Israel of practicing State terrorism and killing Palestinian children.
al-Ghanim went popular on Twitter among Arabs and Muslims a few hours after a video was posted of his speech at the closing session of the conference. Dismissing the Israeli Knesset from the IPU was an achievement that hadn’t been made since 50 years. This was a parliamentary diplomatic move to achieve a political gain, without affecting official diplomacy. The Emir of Kuwait sent a cable of congratulations to the President of the National Assembly following his position, describing it as honorable. The Emir insinuated his support to al-Ghanim’s position when he wrote that it “embodies the clear position of the State of Kuwait in support of the brothers in Palestine to stand up for their legitimate rights and their just cause.”
Technically, parliamentary diplomacy cannot express the official views of a State, since its representatives have a special scope within which they express their position and the public opinion on a particular subject. The parliamentary form of diplomatic endeavor liberates top-level diplomacy from conventional constrains and can sometimes open new paths for action.
In developed countries, there is coordination and exchange of roles, or rather a distribution of roles agreed upon between the two types of diplomacy. In US Congress and in EU parliaments, MPs speak freely on political matters. They cross the “green lines” of official diplomacy and sometimes touch the red lines, exerting pressure on other parliaments (sometimes even the presidents thereof), to win official diplomacy some points. The US Congressmen do that in their visits to other countries. In many cases, they come back home with economic and political and security gains, and therefore have a say in the US institutional decision-making.
Track II diplomacy is also an aspect of the democracy of international relations. While this kind of democracy is effectively managed in core countries, its role is still limited in many periphery countries. That is due, among other things, to the political structure of government systems there.
The Federal National Council of the United Arab Emirates has been working on activating the role of parliamentary diplomacy since Amal al-Qubaisi became the president. With the support of the government, she focused on activating the FNC’s role in foreign policy and raising awareness of its activity internationally.
Throughout the IPU meetings in Russia, the FNC worked hard to have international parliamentary resolution issued to stop the persecution of Myanmar’s Rohingya minority, after its government condemned these crimes and provided humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees since the crisis surfaced.
An FNC role in foreign policy will empower Track I diplomacy on the international level and support “intermestic” policies. But we need to inform the delegates participating in international parliamentary events. The Council should provide them with the necessary expertise through a series of sessions, conferences and seminars, this way members can deal with difficult situations, like the involving of complex questions by journalists on matters outside the scope of official foreign policy.
