PROTOCOL FOR MULTILATERAL MEETINGS
BANTAY GOBYERNO SERIES 062
By Ike Señeres 03/30/2011
PROTOCOL FOR MULTILATERAL MEETINGS
I have written this piece about protocol for multilateral meetings, in the hope that it could help unite organizations of all kinds that are trying to work together for common causes. Sets of protocols are like “terms of engagement “ that would define how many sides would relate to each other. In particular, I am hoping that this would work towards the unity of the environment sector.
Let me start by saying that having a set of protocols for meetings is not the same as using Robert’s Rules of Order. Protocol defines who could attend meetings and how the attendees should relate to each other. Robert’s Rules define how the meeting should be conducted and in what order the attendees should be allowed to speak.
More often than not, the attendees or the prospective attendees of meetings would tend to disagree with each other. It is because of this reason that they would rather not attend the meetings, or if they would decide to attend, they would not want to sit next to each other, or would not want to be near each other. As it usually happens, the lack of a defined set of protocols would prevent meetings from being convened in the first place, thus defeating the purposes for convening the meetings in the first place.
A classic example of disagreements that would have led to protocol problems happened in the summit of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum in 1996. At that time, there were still three “Chinas”, and even before the start of the meetings, it was very difficult to bring them together to sit in the same conference table. To cut a long story short, it was fortunate that they all agreed to adopt a set of protocols, and the summit was successfully conducted.
It could be said that among the three, Hong Kong could be considered the passive element. It was a British Colony at that time, and they considered the other two Chinas as separate countries, even if their own handover to the mainland was just around the corner. It was the People’s Republic of China (PROC) that would not attend the summit and would not sit in the same table as the “other China”, if it was recognized as the “Republic of China” (ROC). After rounds of pre-summit negotiations, ROC finally agreed to be recognized as “Chinese Taipei”, and PROC agreed thereafter to attend, provided that they are not seated to each other.
The key to the amicable entry of the three “Chinas” into the APEC is the legal fiction that it is a forum of “economies”, and not a forum of “countries”. This is the reason why there are no flags in APEC meetings. It is also the reason why the delegates to the forum are recognized as “Heads of Economies”, and not as “Heads of State”. Otherwise, PROC would not attend any meeting where Hong Kong and Taiwan are also recognized as “countries’ carrying their own flags, and represented by their Heads of State.
The key to the success of APEC (and also of the ASEAN) is the sequential approach of doing the substantive work first in the level of the Technical Working Groups (TWGs) as a first step, before elevating the process to the next level of the Senior Officials Meetings (SOMs). For practical reasons, the TWGs are attended by those who have the rank of Director, while the SOMs are attended by those with the rank of Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister.
After the work process is completed by the SOMs, the substantive outputs are elevated to the level of the Foreign Affairs Ministers, in the Minister’s Meetings (MMs). Thereafter, the last and final steps are the Leader’s Meetings (LMs) that are attended by the Heads of Economies (or Heads of State, in the case of the ASEAN).
In the case of local inter-organizational meetings, the TWGs could be attended by their own sectoral committee heads, and the SOMs could be attended by their Vice Presidents. Going up the ladder, the MMs could be attended by their Presidents or Corporate Secretaries, while the LMs could be attended by their Chairmen or Board Members. In the case of local inter-municipal meetings, the TWGs could be attended by their assistant department heads or their senior sectoral staff members and the SOMs could be attended by their department heads. Going up the ladder, the MMs could be attended by their Vice Mayors or Senior Councillors, while the LMs could be attended by their Mayors or Administrators.
For practical reasons, all places (seats) at the conference table shall be marked by nameplates. All delegates shall be requested not to move the nameplates in order not to disturb the order of protocol. It might sound funny, but the importance of nameplates is taken lightly by many, not realizing its key role in protocol.
Tune in to KA IKING LIVE! 6 to 7pm Thursdays in Global News Network (GNN), Channel 8 in Destiny Cable. Email iseneres@yahoo.com or text to +639997333011. Visit www.senseneres.blogspot.com. Join Coffee Clutch Fridays
By Ike Señeres 03/30/2011
PROTOCOL FOR MULTILATERAL MEETINGS
I have written this piece about protocol for multilateral meetings, in the hope that it could help unite organizations of all kinds that are trying to work together for common causes. Sets of protocols are like “terms of engagement “ that would define how many sides would relate to each other. In particular, I am hoping that this would work towards the unity of the environment sector.
Let me start by saying that having a set of protocols for meetings is not the same as using Robert’s Rules of Order. Protocol defines who could attend meetings and how the attendees should relate to each other. Robert’s Rules define how the meeting should be conducted and in what order the attendees should be allowed to speak.
More often than not, the attendees or the prospective attendees of meetings would tend to disagree with each other. It is because of this reason that they would rather not attend the meetings, or if they would decide to attend, they would not want to sit next to each other, or would not want to be near each other. As it usually happens, the lack of a defined set of protocols would prevent meetings from being convened in the first place, thus defeating the purposes for convening the meetings in the first place.
A classic example of disagreements that would have led to protocol problems happened in the summit of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum in 1996. At that time, there were still three “Chinas”, and even before the start of the meetings, it was very difficult to bring them together to sit in the same conference table. To cut a long story short, it was fortunate that they all agreed to adopt a set of protocols, and the summit was successfully conducted.
It could be said that among the three, Hong Kong could be considered the passive element. It was a British Colony at that time, and they considered the other two Chinas as separate countries, even if their own handover to the mainland was just around the corner. It was the People’s Republic of China (PROC) that would not attend the summit and would not sit in the same table as the “other China”, if it was recognized as the “Republic of China” (ROC). After rounds of pre-summit negotiations, ROC finally agreed to be recognized as “Chinese Taipei”, and PROC agreed thereafter to attend, provided that they are not seated to each other.
The key to the amicable entry of the three “Chinas” into the APEC is the legal fiction that it is a forum of “economies”, and not a forum of “countries”. This is the reason why there are no flags in APEC meetings. It is also the reason why the delegates to the forum are recognized as “Heads of Economies”, and not as “Heads of State”. Otherwise, PROC would not attend any meeting where Hong Kong and Taiwan are also recognized as “countries’ carrying their own flags, and represented by their Heads of State.
The key to the success of APEC (and also of the ASEAN) is the sequential approach of doing the substantive work first in the level of the Technical Working Groups (TWGs) as a first step, before elevating the process to the next level of the Senior Officials Meetings (SOMs). For practical reasons, the TWGs are attended by those who have the rank of Director, while the SOMs are attended by those with the rank of Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister.
After the work process is completed by the SOMs, the substantive outputs are elevated to the level of the Foreign Affairs Ministers, in the Minister’s Meetings (MMs). Thereafter, the last and final steps are the Leader’s Meetings (LMs) that are attended by the Heads of Economies (or Heads of State, in the case of the ASEAN).
In the case of local inter-organizational meetings, the TWGs could be attended by their own sectoral committee heads, and the SOMs could be attended by their Vice Presidents. Going up the ladder, the MMs could be attended by their Presidents or Corporate Secretaries, while the LMs could be attended by their Chairmen or Board Members. In the case of local inter-municipal meetings, the TWGs could be attended by their assistant department heads or their senior sectoral staff members and the SOMs could be attended by their department heads. Going up the ladder, the MMs could be attended by their Vice Mayors or Senior Councillors, while the LMs could be attended by their Mayors or Administrators.
For practical reasons, all places (seats) at the conference table shall be marked by nameplates. All delegates shall be requested not to move the nameplates in order not to disturb the order of protocol. It might sound funny, but the importance of nameplates is taken lightly by many, not realizing its key role in protocol.
Tune in to KA IKING LIVE! 6 to 7pm Thursdays in Global News Network (GNN), Channel 8 in Destiny Cable. Email iseneres@yahoo.com or text to +639997333011. Visit www.senseneres.blogspot.com. Join Coffee Clutch Fridays
posted by Ike Señeres at 1:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home