The proliferation and multilevel involvement of NGOs non-governmental organisations in every aspect of international negotiations has revitalised many debates with new approaches and new options, but also stifled the ability of traditional sovereign actors to operate unimpeded in their own system. In almost every instance, the state must "share the stage with sovereignty-free actors", as Lewis Rasmussen negatively defines them.9 According to the US Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott, "[I]n Bosnia, nine agencies and departments of the US government are co-operating with more than a dozen other governments, seven international organisations and thirteen major NGOs...to implement the Dayton Accords."10 Diplomats past and present have expressed their frustration at having to watch various specialised government agencies move in to share office space abroad even as the US Department of State’s budget suffers under Congress.11 In a post-Cold War existence, the complexity of international relations is being felt at the higher levels of governmental organisations around the world, all of which have had to suddenly re-evaluate their purpose and responsibilities.This profound realignment of global politics and incredible technological advancement has also forced countries to rethink the threats they are preparing for, in both diplomatic and military terms.12 Commerce has moved to the foreground as a primary foreign policy objective, not least because of the political clout of wealthy corporations within the US.13 Recent US efforts to include China as a full member of the World Trade Organisation and the losing battle human rights groups are fighting to hold China responsible for its abuses, are indicative of the changing perceptions of national interest.14 In purely psychological terms, for example, the deepest fear of the American citizen is terrorism and its new technological derivatives, biological warfare and nuclear proliferation.15