Non-state actors in the modern context have been taken to a higher level - where

they have been deemed to be of a significant impact in the political arena. No

longer they represent the civil groups of old, marching down the streets to prot
est certain legislations in the home country; or their presence not felt at all
in an authoritative state. In today's context, the non-state actors have become
a strong influencing factor, if not a determining variable, in the foreign polic
y decisions. This is understandably evident in democratic states; however, even
in communist and dictatorial states, the influence of non-state actors is ever g
rowing. I argue that the role of non-state actors have become increasingly impor
tant in influencing foreign policy decisions, especially so in the 21st century.
Non-state actors can be generally be described as any organization that is not a
country - this includes international institutions, civil societies and transna
tional actors. To various people it may mean differently - the range of answers
include Al-Qaeda and terrorists to peaceful civil groups and wealthy individuals
. A clearer concept of non-state actors is any non-sovereign entity that exerts
and exercises significant economic, political or social power and influence at a
national, and in some cases international, level.
The characteristics of the non-state actors are what make them very influential,
given the context of the modern world. Non-state actors are often in the forefr
ont setting, right in the heat of the debates and protests against the various l
egislations against their philosophies and ideals. On a local context, the non-s
tate actors can protest against a particular legislation with very strong suppor
t. The case of abortion in America has evoked a strong response from the pro-lif
e group. With President Obama recently supporting the previous bill by issuing a
n executive order, the pro-life faction have been protesting in various states a
round America with the Tea Party Express as well as lobbyists influencing the op
position Republicans to debate against the order in the Congress. Such is the in
fluence of these interest groups that the approval ratings of the President. On
a global scale, these non-state actors are also equally successful. A prime exam
ple is the human rights record of China - a country that has not been known for
a democratic system. Amnesty International has pointed the dismal record in the
world's most populous nation - a point taken into consideration by many nations.
As such, it has been an influencing factor in improving trade in sensitive area
s between China and the European Union - especially in the area of defense and s
ales of arms. Amnesty International and other like-minded interest groups keep t
abs on the China issue and constantly pressurize countries to keep trade low wit
h China. The fact that the European Union is bowing to the pressure is a sign of
strong influence by these non-state actors.
Beyond that, they are also changing the status quo in countries - not longer can
countries act as the central actors, forcing the rest of the entities to treat
it as the pivotal point which all revolve around them. This has been the case in
the past, where the countries interacted exclusively with each other and non-st
ate actors were but little significance to the outcome. The Cold War was a case
in point - non-state actors were but pawns in the game between the two most powe
rful nations then. The Soviet Union and the USA were actively plotting and plann
ing against each other, putting the world in constant peril and fears of Armaged
don consistently surfaced. However, in the recent years, the fall of the Berlin
has coincided with the rise of the non-state actors in these fields. The media w
as pivotal to the thawing of relations between the two nations, as also to provi
de the calming effect that the world needed after 40 years of trepidation. The m
edia was also significant to bring down the dictatorial Soviet satellite states
- the people roused by the media overthrew their governments in Albania, Czechos
lovakia. Further on, again because of the media, these states received aids from
the West to aid in recovery and rebuilding.
Non-state actors have also been seen as perfect facilitators in international re
lations. From the role of wealthy individuals playing mediators to the power of
Elders and other similar institutions, the results of the facilitation done by t
he various non-state actors have shown in the real world. The dispute for Pedra
Branca was peacefully settled by the International Court of Justice, and respect
was given to the Court by the two nations throughout the whole process. On an i
ndividual level, the success of Tony Blair on the international stage made him a
n envoy to the Middle East after his role as Prime Minister of the United Kingdo
m. His efforts at enforcing peace throughout the Middle East was noted by the in
ternational committee - many countries had more favorable foreign policies towar
ds their nations and the West during his tenure as the envoy.
The above three characteristics have shown the roles of non-state actors to be r
ather influential and are crucial elements to the next factor - their ability to
influence the foreign policies decisions of states. This has been apparent espe
cially so in the post-Cold War years with the different civil societies, interes
t groups, transnational actors and international institutions coming into promin
ence. In many areas of foreign policies, these non-state actors have played a si
gnificant role in influencing, sometimes in deciding, the final outcome.
From the role of the international institutions, the most widely recognized woul
d be the United Nations. Formed in the years after the second World War, the Uni
ted Nations aims to maintain international peace and security, developing friend
ly relations amongst nations and promote social progress, better living standard
s and human rights. With this in mind, the United Nations went ahead to achieve
its goals through peacekeeping missions, conflict management amongst many others
. With regards to foreign policy decisions, it has not only prevented many count
ries to confront each other in the battlefield, but brought the arguments back t
o the negotiation tables. They have influenced the foreign policies of countries
to soften towards each other, and work towards the goal of peace through negoti
ations. Examples include Israel and Palestinian conflict, East Timor conflicts,
where the nations have their foreign policies decisions influenced by a non-stat
e actor.
Peace-keeping is not the only task that the UN has done well. With relations to
foreign policy, it has shaped many of the different views and opinions of countr
ies and other non-state actors. One of the areas that it has done well is the aw
areness of poverty levels in some parts of the world. Telling the world through
its different programs, it has awakened the world to put some focus into develop
ment of these nations. China, for instance, has noticed and changed its foreign
policy to increase trade with the African continent. It has already started to i
ncrease its trade with African countries over the last two decades and have put
in numerous amounts of investment in developing infrastructure for these poor na
tions, indirectly helping the poor to have a platform to compete and survive in
the current world. America has also responded to such awareness drive, with its
foreign policies set in place to help the growth of such nations, working hand i
n hand with other non-state actors to get these nations out of the poverty cycle
. It has also forced the government of these developing nations to open up and r
eceive help, changing a once stubborn foreign policy stand of against any foreig
n investment. Through the impact of one non-state actor, we have seen the change
s the states have made in their foreign policies decisions and it is not limited
to the above only.
Another significant group of non-state actors are the lobbyists. This is evident
in the democratic countries, especially so in the United States of America. One
visible impact of these non-state actors is America's stand on the side of the
state of Israel against the Palestine. Due to the enormous pressure exerted by t
he Jewish group lobby in America on its congressmen, the last few decades has se
en America building strong ties with Israel, favoring them against the Palestine
. This examples clearly shows that even though the final decision is not done by
the non-state actors, the amount of influence that they have over the governmen
ts is large to force a decision that is favorable to them.
One non-state actor that has been considering growing in influence over the last
two decades is the media. With technological advances in this field, the media
is now widely available to every person, giving them real time information on de
mand. This has shaped the way governments has worked in various aspects - the in
fluence the media exerts on the citizens can shape a country's foreign policy de
cisions (in the case of Singapore, strengthen its case to bring back the diploma
t from Romania, Dr. Silviu Ionescu, to court with the full support of the citize
ns); or influence the state to make a decision against another nation (South Kor
ea versus North Korea - the media updates the government and thus influence them
to react in the quickest time); the media also highlights situation around the
globe (the disasters on a grand scale - countries have flocked to save the place
affected by the disaster). All of these are the impact of a singular non-state
entity, with profound impact on the decisions of foreign policies around the wor
ld.
Interest groups and civil societies have also a huge say in the decision-making
process of foreign policies. Through protesting down the streets to the debates
online, these civil societies have created a strong influence in each countries
that it affects the foreign policies. Greenpeace is on the prime example - to pr
event whale-hunting in Japan, it has gone through different channels to create a
wareness on this topic. Confrontations with the Japanese whaling ships, protesti
ng down the streets of United States and around the world, Greenpeace made its s
ay known clearly to the American government to force them to make a pact with th
e Japanese government to try to reduce the whale hunts. When it deems the effort
s by the governments unsatisfactory, Greenpeace activists went ahead to attack t
he Japanese whaling ships, creating a international case and forcing the countri
es to re-think its foreign policies decisions with each other. Other civil socie
ties include Amnesty International, Red Cross and Oxfam, which raise awareness a
nd puts things into perspective for the governments of nations.
Aside from the above groups, one group that is very confrontational is the terro
rist factions around the world. These ideological groups with military might oft
en cause nations to rethink their foreign policies decisions. One single event t
hat forced the world to change its major foreign policies was the 9/11 incident,
when the world saw the impact of Al-Qaeda. Needless to say, the next few years
was the retaliation from America, where the "war against terrorism" was in force
. Other countries followed suit with wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, and Amer
ica adopted a different stance with some nations in the fight against the terror
ists. Though not intentional, these violent non-state actors created a paradigm
shift in the foreign policies of many nation-states.
The importance of non-state actors cannot be overly emphasized - it has been sta
ted that after the Cold War, the world saw the rise of the era of the non-state
actors. Although it cannot be always a good thing with the case of violent acts
of terrorist groups, the world has progressed further with efforts from various
interest groups. Foreign policies have also been influenced greatly, if not chan
ged entirely, due to the efforts from these group of non-state organizations.