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’?
Hey, i just wanted to pick up on your final point about calling New Diplomacy 'functional diplomacy' instead. Is this to suggest that Old Diplomacy did not work and only the New Diplomacy has any success?
ReplyDeleteThe New Diplomacy has emerged since the end of the Cold War, and there were quite clearly huge amounts of Old Diplomacy and negotiations during the Cold War which proved to be successful. Another example of successful (or functional) Old Diplomacy can be seen in The Venezuaelen Crisis, as heard in our first lecture.
So Im not sure I can agree with calling New Diplomacy 'functional diplomacy', as to me it disregards all diplomatic efforts that did not use New Diplomacy tactics (successful or otherwise).
Let me know what you think!
You made the comment about the 'invaluable role media plays in the transparency of 'New Diplomacy'. My argument is this transparent 'New Diplomacy of any help because time and time again we have seen big polluters sitting in these same conferences refusing to change. I therefore feel the openess of the New Diplomacy is rendered weak,its thrown back into peoples faces, yes witness everything protest as much as you like, in the end the accused states will go back and do their thing.
ReplyDeleteAlex!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment I really appreciate constructive feedback. However I think you have misunderstood my argument - I meant by functional Diplomacy, the follow up of Old Diplomacy. For Old diplomacy was a success rather then a failure. Nonetheless, the world is changing and we must change with it. As a result after the Second World War, world leaders relised the change that had occured in the International System and decided that it was time to change the rules of the game in order to maintain peace. Therefore instead of creating a new phenomenon (new diplomacy), they Just made more public and arguably transparent to be able to win peoples hearts and minds. Finally Functionalism in my view is not whether something is a success or a failure but the following from one thing to another...I hope this is more explicit.
can you please let me into the evolution of warfare like you did on diplomacy's evolution?
ReplyDelete