Absent Voices, Fragile Diplomacy: Rethinking the ‘End of NGOs’

Geneva, July 2025

In the chilled UN meeting room, on the final day of the Open-Ended Working Group on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), the chair invited civil society to speak. The microphone stood waiting. No one rose. Where NGOs once provided expertise and advocacy to the room, there was only silence—a glimpse of what diplomacy looks like without them.

That silence was not disinterest. It reflected the hard calculus civil society now faces: is there enough substance to justify showing up? Will the doors be open, and if so, will there be any real chance to participate? For NGOs under pressure to show impact with scarce resources, these are not abstract questions. They decide whether the high cost of being present is worthwhile. In this case, the answer was no.

Beyond the Golden Age

On the surface, the PAROS working group in Geneva seemed to confirm a wider story. In Foreign Affairs, Sarah Bush and Jennifer Hadden declared the “end of the age of NGOs,” arguing that the post–Cold War golden age of influence has given way to stagnation, shrinking budgets, and state repression. Indeed, although United Nations Resolution 79/512, which established the OEWG on PAROS, explicitly provided for observer participation, the question of NGO access became one of three issues—along with the agenda and programme of work—that derailed substantive discussion in the first session.

In July, when the Chair proposed accrediting a list of NGOs, Iran argued that participation should only be permitted “within a clear principle and well-defined framework.” Russia warned that NGOs must not “politicize” the group or “undermine” interstate discussions, and insisted their role remain “strictly subsidiary.” Some states pushed back. Brazil called for a more open approach, Canada pressed for NGO input during substantive debates, Ireland highlighted the importance of inclusivity, and Samoa stressed that small delegations rely on NGO expertise.

But in the end, states agreed to confine NGOs to a single statement on the last day of the session. One organization—the Centre for Security Studies at ETH Zurich—was anonymously vetoed. Participation had become contested and constrained.

This could be read as proof that the “golden age” is over. But this is not a story of retreat. Civil society is not disappearing; it is adapting. The megaphone of public campaigning may be harder to wield, but that was never the whole picture. Today, campaigns are complemented by quieter but equally vital forms of work: independent research, convening dialogue, building capacity, and grappling with sensitive or long-term issues—ethical, humanitarian, or political—that states often avoid. These roles rarely draw headlines, but they are what keep international cooperation moving when politics stall.

The Connective Tissue of Peace

Nina Tannenwald once argued that with the collapse of formal arms control, norms would be the only thing holding restraint together. Civil society is part of that fabric. We carry forward values and expectations of restraint when formal agreements falter. We provide expertise—technical, legal, and policy—that states draw on. We preserve continuity when government officials rotate out. We bridge divides by convening actors who cannot meet formally and by engaging across political lines. We also connect with publics, helping governments secure the mandate to act.

Civil society is not on the margins of diplomacy. We are woven through the process itself, linking knowledge to governments, publics, and communities of practice. Our role is not glamorous. It is patient, often invisible, and always hard work. But it is essential. Civil society is the connective tissue that allows diplomacy to endure in fractured times.

That is why the silence in Geneva was so striking. The absence of NGOs did not mean the expertise and engagement had vanished. It meant diplomacy was proceeding without the thread that holds cooperation together.

Civil Society’s Quiet Power

Civil society has never been stronger in terms of expertise. Our technical, legal, and policy depth now rivals that of states. We bring agility, institutional memory, convening power, and the ability to connect research to practice—turning knowledge into cooperative action. Yet these strengths remain precarious without sustained support. Most NGOs operate without core funding, surviving on short-term project grants. The result is fragmentation and competition when what is most needed is collaboration.

Meanwhile, philanthropic resources often flow more easily to universities and research centres with their endowments and infrastructure. NGOs rarely have those advantages. Our value is different: we convene across divides, sustain continuity between negotiating cycles, and carry public interest into processes that might otherwise remain narrowly state-to-state. These are roles that cannot be outsourced, and they require recognition and support in their own right.

The challenge is that much of this value is hard to see. Campaigns generate headlines and metrics; convening experts or preparing smaller states to take part in complex discussions does not. Yet this quiet work is what sustains cooperation when politics are fragile, and it is where civil society has become indispensable.
For donors, the opportunity is not only to keep this work alive, but to multiply its impact. Funding collaborative platforms and long-term expertise allows NGOs to share resources, broaden participation, and ensure that independent knowledge continues to shape international cooperation, even when official channels falter.

Breaking the Silence

The microphone that stood waiting in Geneva was more than a procedural detail. It was a warning of what diplomacy looks like when civil society is absent: narrower, slower, and less accountable.

Diplomacy is often imagined as the work of states alone. But in practice, it depends on a wider fabric of actors. Civil society is part of that connective tissue. We carry values and dialogue across divides, sustain memory when governments change, and keep cooperation alive when official channels fracture.

This moment should not be mistaken for decline. Civil society’s role is evolving. Our expertise is deeper, our convening more critical, and our continuity more essential than ever. Just as norms of restraint help hold arms races in check when treaties collapse, civil society sustains the practices of dialogoue and cooperation that keep diplomacy alive.

The way forward lies in collaboration—across NGOs and with donors who understand that this work is not a luxury but an essential part of international peace. Supporting collaborative platforms and long-term expertise strengthens the foundation of global cooperation.

If governments and donors invest in this connective tissue, diplomacy will be more resilient, inclusive, and effective. That is how we break the silence of Geneva.

Published in The Ploughshares Monitor Autumn 2025