Diplomatic Developments

Over the past 4000 years the implementation of diplomacy has developed and altered dramatically. From the empire of Sumer in Mesopotamia to the Italian renaissance to what we would consider our modern world of today diplomacy has been molded and transformed to compliment our changing society. The fundamental reason for diplomacy is the only thing that has not changed though. We still believe in our need for it.

If we take the term “new” diplomacy in comparison to “old” diplomacy the change is dramatic but this developed over a period of time and not over night as some seem to be under the impression. The most dramatic change seemed to come with the completion of the First World War as Europe changed their view of diplomacy in order to prevent further war as they believed that “old” diplomacy was the core reason for the war.

The development of the League of Nations was a momentous step in this transformation they were trying to create. It created a new playing field as such for public diplomacy and NGO’s. It was also the starting point for International Law as we know it today and the idea of globalization became firmly entrenched. In order for diplomacy to work globally the need for more openness was apparent and so secrecy at a state level lessened. The development of technology has created a world which is more informed as to what is taking place globally and so governments are now answerable to their people at a heightened level. This of course still requires a certain level of secrecy but is no where near as bad as it once was.

Of all the changes to diplomacy over the past 100 years I would say that the inclusion of organizations not directly connected to state diplomacy have had the largest impact.

Diplomacy....Same Old Game Just Different New Players?

Is there anything called 'New' Diplomacy? or is it still 'Old' Diplomacy moulded by new players to suit the modern world? When looking at Diplomacy it is crucial to examine the reason for the establishment of Diplomacy. My view is it is still the same system but now different tactics have to be applied especially in this modern world were there is a lot going own such as nuclear proliferation,globalisation, conflict and the need to be seen as 'Democratic'.

The 'olden' type was more secretive everything was done behind closed doors no information was to be let out for the public to know. Unlike the 'new' type everything is open to public scrutiny and control but there is a crucial flaw to this system of openess which takes place after agreements are made. Looking at the above statement one can argue that whats the difference between the 'old' and 'new', still information is only let out after an agreement has been made rendering both types technically still secretive.

'Old' Diplomacy involved sending diplomats to do negotiations, we still find this in the modern World but the only difference is the establishment of permanent locations in other states. There are now Embassies in most states, by so doing it has made diplomacy more professional. This set up has brought priviledges to these diplomats in terms of treatment by the host country. One priviledge which has always been questionable is immunity, I personally feel if a diplomat or their family does something wrong they should be prosecuted accordingly. These immunities are often a subject to abuse.

However it is crucial to note that with this 'new' diplomacy there have been new players involved such as International Organisations. The birth of the International Organisation started with the formation of the League of Nations, even though it failed to stop another World War happening, however the United Nation has sought of seen some success. The formation of these organisation has been to try and bring some stability, order and peace. They have succeded in places were they have changed focus of Governments from just physical security but to social and economic well being of their citizen.

But this 'New' Diplomacy it has got its own disadvantages were so many actors are involved we have witnessed information being leaked before a decision is made, secrecy is hard. Also when looking at the influence of Intergovernmental Organisation there is a tendency of decisions being biased especially were Foreign Policy is concerned. What i mean is the influence by other state in terms of their self interest. Then should i conclude and say the 'New' Diplomacy especially were InterGovernmental is concerned should be replaced by 'New Bullying Diplomacy' Just like what Gordon Brown is accused. Same big actors,same influence.

The evolution of diplomacy

From being an entirely secrete and exclusive club where, great powers had discussion about high politics to a more open, inclusive club. In today’s world where we are ‘rule’ by the media, diplomacy has evolved to something almost everybody can take part in.

For most of us diplomacy is way of conducting negotiations between sovereign units in the regional and international level. Moreover, before the Great War and in medieval Europe most of the diplomatic relationships were limited just to states. However, the development of modern communication has crippled the way diplomacy was used to be conduct. The development of the media has also brought more actors in the diplomatic society. The sovereign states are no longer the ‘big players’; we have other actors like NGO’s, who push for further changes in the way diplomacy is conducted.

The twentieth century has indeed changed the course of diplomacy. The creation of new states and the revolution in the media industry has widened the formerly narrowed and exclusive club to a more openly and inclusive club, where different unites and actors come together and negotiate with each other. The world summit on the information society: Geneva 2003 and Tunis 2005, and the Copenhagen summit was broadcast for millions to see. Even the diplomatic interactions within the UN are broadcast for ‘outsiders’ to view. However, most of the so-called ‘Hard Politics” are still conducted behind closed doors.

Diplomacy and the way of conducting it, has indeed evolved, from being a “closed” club for the powerful to a more open club, however the powerful still controls the functions and management of the club with an “Iron Fist”.

Has Diplomacy Changed?

The signing of the Treaty of Versailles is taken by many to be the turning point in the history of modern diplomacy; the point in which the Old, secret, stuffy and exclusive Diplomacy was replaced by the New, which placed openness and honesty in the highest regard.

But like many events which are claimed to be the decisive moment, wherein everything before or after them changes significantly, reality disagrees. Firstly, Versailles itself was a fairly egregious example of the Old Diplomacy it sought to replace - yes, there were many delegations in attendance, but many crucial stakeholders were excluded.

But this is not to say the post-WW1 peace did not drastically change international diplomacy. Perhaps the most important change was the formal integration of public bodies - these bodies, known as League of Nations Associations, were formally connected to the League itself, and served as pressure groups focussing national public opinion and aiming them at the highest level of the international system. In the UK, as many as half a million people were connected to their LoN Union, and there were similar numbers in other nations. This was important as it allowed individuals to have a say directly in diplomacy, rather than indirectly through their governments. The NGOs of today could be said to be the descendants of the LoN associations.

So do modern diplomatic structures resemble the nobler outcomes of the post-WW1 peace, or the more pragmatic, unaccountable techniques that dominated international relations prior to the War?

Well, one issue is that of 'secret treaties' - these agreements, settled in private without the knowledge of the people their signatories represent, are often considered one of the major reasons why WW1 went from a localised Balkan war to a world war so quickly. The peace following that war aimed to abolish their use entirely. But at the risk of sounding paranoid, how can we know whether or not our governments are still involved in secret diplomacy if such diplomacy is, by definition, secret. It is only after the passage of time, that historians and journalists can discover if there was ever any secret agreements in place, (for instance, the removal of missiles from Turkey, which ended the Cuban missile crisis, or, more recently, Tony Blair's unpublicised early agreement to support the US in any aggressive move against Iraq).

But perhaps the most important change is the arrival of NGOs into diplomatic summitry. This has surpassed what even the most idealistic of LoN proponents invisaged in their day. However, while the presence of charities, pressure groups and other institutions on the world stage is a progressive change is up to debate. Ultimately, getting invited into the decision-making process is at the whim of the world's strongest powers, and these NGOs would not be where they are today if they were not viewed as complimentary actors to the world's hegemonic states.

Diplomacy in the Contemporary World

The diplomacy methods have had to change to accommodate all the changes that the world has experienced in the last couple of centuries. A new paradigm has emerged with those changes: especially the changes brought by the two Great World Wars, new actors were added to diplomacy, a new agenda with social concerns were included and a more public relationship was created.

Some of the actors that had emerged and joined the new diplomacy were the newly independent countries and actors that have a transnational dimension and are not state actors. These new actors brought the urge for an abandonment of the old bilateral way of negotiation to a more multilateral process, where more states and other international actors can take part.

We cannot forget about the macro regions that have been established in different parts of the world. Those macro regions can only use diplomacy in a multilateral way.

Economics also makes the world more dependent on the relations between countries; economics plays an important role in all forms of diplomacy more so now than ever before.

The new diplomacy has also changed the focus of divergence between countries to a more convergence approach between countries and the others actors that can be working for a country or a non-state organization, as my colleague Federica mentioned on her piece “the diplomacy for people”.

Additionally, the public have become more aware of what is going on an international level; we can take the example of the demonstrators during the G8 meeting. Public opinion is very relevant and can change government policies.

I also feel that the new diplomacy is more bureaucracy than the old diplomacy. Policies, decisions and elements of those policies need to go through more people than they used to in the old diplomacy, where the diplomat had more freedom. Finally, while the new methods of diplomacy have come a long way, there is still evidence that elements of the old diplomacy exist, particularly in the way that the more powerful countries treat the ‘developing’ countries.

On Diplomacy and multilateralism

A wind of change in terms of the multilateral aspect to negotiation in diplomacy signifies a major departure from the diplomacy of old. Communication and conflict negotiation in the diplomacy of old was bilateral in nature. Nations found this restrictive measure useful as negotiations were often bound by secrecy.

After the First World War the dynamics of diplomacy changed in that statesmen and diplomats had failed to halt the descent into war and more importantly, the fate of international politics and future conflict resolution could not solely be entrusted to them. The advent of the League of Nations later to be replaced by the United Nations 1945 signifies an important change in the nature of diplomacy. States and diplomats were still major actors on the international political scene as of old however they were to find themselves in an eventful market place, joined by other actors. These include intergovernmental actors consisting of government representatives as members and also non governmental actors consisting of private individuals , interest groups and international organizations .

The complexity of all these actors on the international stage signifies a major change; non governmental organizations have become key players in the game of international affairs. This can be exemplified by the role of anti globalization movements who organized riots in Seattle against the World Trade Organization (1999) to get their concerns across. As non governmental organizations are not bureaucratic in nature compared to the nature of traditional diplomacy, they are more adaptable on the political stage as they are not bound by bureaucratic rules. Non governmental organizations aim to represent interests of civil society as opposed to traditional diplomacy which is exclusive in nature to an extent. It must be remembered that the inclusivity and openness of conferences is a rather new development but the notion of conference meetings is not at all a new aspect of diplomacy, as it can be traced as far back as the Spartan Conference in 430B.C right up until today. However what has undoubtedly changed is the nature and ever increasing involvement of non governmental bodies in international political affairs.

Links
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/544447.stm
http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/agpeace.html

the diplomacy for the people

In my view the most significant change in diplomacy can be considered the shift that occurred since it was just a matter of peace and war to its engagement in social issues, that is to say its shift from high politics to a mix of high and low politics.
Politics is becoming increasingly open to the public, and it is involving more and more people, and this is mainly because politics is about people, that is why diplomacy must engage more with the people and represent their interests since they are the active part of what is defined as sovereign state.
Moreover a social diplomacy which represents not only the national interests but the interests of the population as well is probably the key for what has been advocated since the end of the World War II: the real democratization of the world.
NGOs and IOs play an important role in social diplomacy, especially in those states that have a weak diplomatic machinery, such as many Third World Countries, and where the government abuses civil and human rights, in fact here is where their voices must be louder, louder than corruption and than bombs.
Social diplomacy is the main tool to advocate development and to challenge an unequal international system, to stop violation of human rights and to mediate in situation of conflicts.
However the international situation shows that social and development diplomacy still has to be developed and improved in order to achieve its goals, since the dialogue between the global North and the global South seems to be still weak.

The evolution of diplomacy

The evolution of diplomacy

I came across many different definitions of Diplomacy whilst doing my research for the seminars. And I believe that all those definitions vary according to the epistemological aspect of Diplomacy/Modern Diplomacy, what the authors’ political views are in the International System, and the timeline of the definition (whether it’s old or new Diplomacy). Nonetheless, there is long history of diplomatic activities going back at least a millennium.

"The word Diplomacy has its roots in Greek and was later used by the French (diplomatie) to refer to the work of negotiator on behalf of a sovereign (Robert, 2006: 55)". It’s the art of conducting negotiations between states. Before the Second World War, diplomacy was a state based relationship; very narrow and limited to the thing that diplomats do. Modern diplomacy began with creation of permanent missions between states in the fifteenth century, but diplomatic representation is very ancient in the form of envoys from sovereign to sovereign (i.e. the lordships in ancient Greece). The congress of Vienna also established grades of diplomatic office, and laid down rules of correct behaviour and immunity. For example: ‘droit de chapelle’ (entitlement to practise own religion) was one of the diplomatic privileges traditionally granted to diplomats in Vienna. According to Waltz Robert (2006:55), 'sovereigns often sent envoys or representatives to other Sovereign for various reasons: to prevent war, to cease hostilities or simply to continue peaceful relations and economic exchange'.

Many people argue that diplomacy has had a slight but constant changes over the course of the second half of the twentieth century. During this time, diplomacy had widened its aspects - from being too narrowly focus, secretive and exclusive, to being widely open and inclusive. The media on the other hand plays an invaluable role on the transparency of new diplomacy. If we look at the recent Copenhagen conference for instance, where many states around the world gathered to discuss and negotiate about the impact of climate change and other environmental issues, was watched by millions of people on live TV.

Finally, I would like to emphasise on the words ‘Old and New’ – as critics often argue that there has not been significant change in diplomacy. Therefore would it be better to call it ‘Functional Diplomacy’ instead of ‘New Diplomacy’?

Interesting Article About American Military

Hello everyone. Its not really related to this module, but I thought I'd share this article I just finished reading. It makes a really interesting point about the subjective conceptualisation of War, illustrating that in the minds of many American 'warriors', War is a creative, rather than a destructive act, going so far as to describe it as an art. Its a pretty good read, and it also includes the phrase "Wehrmacht penis envy", which I may try and use in everyday conversation.

Washington and Damasco re-establish diplomatic relations....what are the implications?

i use the occasion to try this blog since this week happened an important diplomatic change. i've just read tha Obama has re-engaged diplomatic relations with syria after 5 years of silence and ostility. after the accident in Beirut on the 14th of february 2005, the diplomatic relations between Washington and Damasco had been cut down. finally they re-astablished relations, but what i want to underline is the conditions of this relations, in fact syria wants that USA take opportune actions to try to sort out the Israel/Palestine issue with particular concern for the territory of Golan occupied by Israel since 1967; but what do the United States want back? clear! the want that Syria cuts it links with Theran since Damasco has always been an economic and ideological supporter of Iran. cut their links means a further isolation of Iran and an aggravation of the latter's situation.
what do you think about this diplomacy of return? I give you this if you give me this back? is this old or new diplomacy?
lets think about it; it is bilateral, it can be argued that in a kind of way it is exclusive, since it aims at the isolation of Iran, and it is about high politics, that is to say matters of security.
that's a strange world!