Obamas First 100 days

We have witnessed the current approaches used by the US since President Obama went into power. The current approaches to building support for the US policies and American values, has seen it trying to use public diplomacy. The US government under Barack Obama is taking a series of immediate steps to regain American credibility overseas. The Obama administration has revised some of its signature policies and moderate its style of international discourse in order to regain the goodwill the United States previously earned. United States ability to achieve its foreign policy objectives, lies in the use of public diplomacy. The most crucial time as the world was waiting was the first 100 days of Obama in the white house.





Obama ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison camp as well as all overseas CIA detention cetres for terror suspects. signing the order Mr Obama said the US would continue to fight terror, but mantain 'our values and ideas'. He also ordered a review of military trials for terror suspects and a ban on harsh interogation methods. This move has been seen as a further distancing of his new administration from the policies of his predecessor, George W Bush.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7954211.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8004798.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7845585.stm

US public diplomacy towards Sudan

Diplomacy is a changing phenomenon; its evolution is due to the circumstances that occur around it (i.e. the media changed the ‘classical’/ ‘secret’ form of diplomacy into a new and arguably ‘open’ form of diplomacy) – hence the recent Copenhagen conference. The pressures of social and technological change are the key characteristics of public diplomacy. It is, however, a way of informing and influencing foreign policy by using information and communication technology (ICT), which allow the public to participate in a rapidly changing world.

There has been a recent update on the United States’ public diplomacy towards Sudan. The Obama administration’s recent policy review toward Sudan has resulted in a comprehensive approach intended to address the humanitarian and security dimensions of the Darfur crisis. A constant social pressure and media reports in the US triggered this change of policy. Students and staffs of the School of Media and Public Affairs of George Washington University played a big role in this policy reform by using online social networking and petitions to campaign against precedent US policies towards Sudan. http://www.gwu.edu/~ipdgc/events/uspdsudan.cfm

I found a really good documentary about the 50^th anniversary retrospective of the ‘Kitchen Debate’ that spontaneously broke out between Nixon and Krushchev and the 1959 American exhibition in the USSR during the Cold war, which could be seen as public diplomacy.

http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/face_off_to_facebook/ - http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/face_off_to_facebook/

Although, according to Hans N. Tuch:

“public diplomacy has been around for a long time, it may not always has been accepted as an intellectual concept, as an academic discipline, or as a profession in which qualifies foreign service officers engage. But as government have come to realise that foreign relations can no longer be managed by traditional diplomatic practices alone, public diplomacy has become an imperative of a nation’s international life.” (Tuch, 1993:3)

Therefore, from past and recent experiences, one could argue that public diplomacy is still very important in international politics.

Inroads into the Islamic world: Obamas Cairo speech (June 2009)

There have been tensions between the U.S and the Middle East and with the advent of the 9/11 bombings and the building tensions in Israeli – Palestinian relations are serving to further compound the problems, which have transcended from regional into global issues .

Berridge is of the idea that public diplomacy does not exist and that it is mere propaganda. The realist school of thought according to Riordan(2003) also asserts that “ Messages , in so far as they exist, are simply exercises in propaganda, designed to demonstrate the superiority of a given nations position .”(Riordan: 2003:121) However, linking this to Obama’s speech addressed to Cairo University, that simply does not hold water. In this speech he addresses not only Egyptians but the Middle-eastern world in general, drawing upon the significant input of the middle eastern region into modern civilization , the peaceful message of Islam and how these commonalities with Americas egalitarian principles should forge peace and not the descent into war .

Propaganda is the dispersion of a view that is biased in the midst of various voices stating the opposite, whereas this speech is in line with the truth as he engages in a dialogue with that part of the world. He also acknowledges the role of the West in destabilizing the middle east through colonialism and the cold war and talks of partnership, bridging the gap between the two cultures and aligning American policy to pursue peace . From this example we can see how Joseph Nye’s 1997 explanation of soft power as “…convincing others to follow, or getting them to agree to , norms and institutions that produce the desired behaviour ”( Riordan ;2003:120) links in with the use of public diplomacy to engage in dialogue and understanding with foreign publics.

Source

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8082862.stm speech
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8082730.stm-
The New Diplomacy, Shaun Riordan 2003 Polity Press
The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean- Robert Leguey –Feilleux , 2009, Lynne Rienner Publishers

Public Diplomacy

Public Diplomacy

For centuries Governments have in one way or another tried export their nation to other nations. By painting a beautiful picture of their state to other states, they will in a sense have more ‘allies’ in the world. States promote their values, morals,culture, policies and other skills that they feel will better the other nation’s perception of their state. The state does this in order to generate a better understanding and relationship with other states. States can use the tools of public diplomacy in order to secure both short and long term goals.

Public diplomacy goes hand in hand with soft power. States tend to use the tools of soft power when engaging in public diplomacy with other states. With extensive development in communication technology, it is now very easy for a state to engage with others. Some states use other tools such as foreign exchange programs, aid, technological assistant and presidential addresses e.g. President Obamas speech to the Iranian people.

Public diplomacy is a very valuable tool for states in this contemporary world. Weather your states is seen by the international community as a major player or not, states do need to use public diplomacy in order to gain and accomplish some of their national interests goals.

The war on terror gives us a great example of how a state such as the United States conduct their public diplomacy. For the United States to win the hearts of other states especially the islamic world and gain more support against terrorism, they need to make the peoples of other states to understand America. The United States are very keen in exporting themselves as a free democratic state. The have to get people to understand their democratic values: freedom of thought, market and opportunity. The current administration knows that it is really crucial for America to be view as the friends rather than enemies in the islamic world.

China is another power that has in recent years used public diplomacy especially in Africa in order to achieve their goals. China is a major power that seeks the recognition as a major power. The Chinese seeks respect and their place in the sun. China is heavily involved in Africa not only as a business partner but also as a aid provider for many of her business partners. By promoting their interest and show that they are willing to go in where others would fear to tread show that the they mean business and business alone. For many African states that exactly what they want. While some Western countries demands certain criterial’s to be filled before business, the Chinese portrait themselves as ‘business‘ partners only. The Chinese government have made it clear to their African counter parts and the African people that they separate politics from business. This separation has been widely accepted in most of the African continent where the Chinese are involved.

The United States and China are both seeking to influence different regions in the world and they are both using public diplomacy in doing so. The United State is using mostly soft power be promoting freedom and democratic values and ideas. when China on the other hand emphasis the need of economical and business approach. Only time can tell wether or not they will be successful.

Link to President Obama’s message to the Iranian People: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY_utC-hrjI

Link to President Obama’s speech in Cairo: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html

Links to different articles of Chinas relations to Africa: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8349020.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8304418.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4949688.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4937568.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4931668.stm

China's public diplomacy: understanding the importance

Lets leave the arguable public diplomacy of the United States, and the arrogant one of Israel; today I would like to present a little of China’s public diplomacy.
China is one of the biggest countries, with 1.34 billion people, a thousand-years culture and its economy is boosting. (For further details see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1287798.stm). However, as Ingrid d’Hooghe states, China is facing problems related to its image, and the opposition of the global public opinion over issues such as pollution, human rights abuses, the Tibet issue, its policies toward Taiwan and Hong Kong, its military force (d‘Hooghe, 2007, 14), the smuggling of nuclear material and its one party regime. D’Hooghe argues that China is addressing the public opinion through public diplomacy manoeuvred by the Office of Foreign Propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party and the Information Office (d’Hooghe, 2007, 21), which exercise great control over the local media.
The fact that the Chinese government exercises authority over its diplomatic machinery says much of the importance of public diplomacy in the contemporary world and I would like to analyse it through the main goals the Chinese public diplomacy is aimed at. In the d’Hooghe’s diplomatic paper is stated that the main goals of the Chinese public diplomacy are to be seen as a country committed to create an “harmonious society” within it, to be seen as good economic partner, to be seen as a force for peace in the international community and finally to be acknowledged as an ancient and vibrant culture ( d’Hooghe, 2007, 18). Someone would argue that those are quite high level goals for a one-party-state which makes full use of the death penalty and of the birth control, which is accused to perpetrate the recent economic crisis because of its currency policy (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2324379920100323), and which vetoed the intervention in Darfur and more recently in Sri-Lanka and is itself involved in the Tibet question.
However China understood that with a good rhetoric it can cover the problems or shift the attention from those issues, especially when supported by censorship and a restrained access to the territory, and that is what its public diplomacy is mainly aimed at.
China has always had a special care of the control of its informative media but especially of the foreign media, which are blamed by the Chinese government to be the main responsible of China’s bad image in the world, arguing that they show just the bad face of China (d’Hooghe, 2007, 17).
The main threat for China is the Internet, which is the most difficult media to control. To address the problem, following Google refusal to contribute to the Chinese censorship, the Chinese government is deciding to shut it down so restraining the information of its citizens as well as limiting the exchange of opinion from the latter to the foreign public.
So doing China constrains others’ public diplomacy, fearing that, knowing inconvenient stories from abroad, its citizen can raise against the government, and prevents its “public diplomats” to express negative view of the country. In fact, it can be argued that since public diplomacy is an important tool for self-presentation, and China is facing many problems with its image abroad, it has to be careful of any information coming in and going out from the country, and a public diplomacy fully under state control reduces the chance to present a bad image of the country.
From the example of China we can understand the importance of self-presentation through the public diplomacy, and that, especially when words are not supported by actions, a state-controlled public diplomacy is required to direct the public opinion, as we have seen in the US public diplomacy after the 9/11 through the Shared Values Campaign which was under government control.

For further details on China and Google see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/23/google-china-firewall-censorship-internet
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/13/AR2010011302908.html
For further details on China and the media censorship see:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11515/
For d'Hooghe diplomatic paper see:
http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2007/20070700_cdsp_paper_hooghe.pdf

is american public diplomacy mere propaganda?

Given the fact that propaganda is a broad term, which creats debates over its definition, let assume that it is the form of communication designed to influence others' behavior for self interests, to quote the literature propaganda is defined by Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell as "the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions and direct behaviors to achieve a response that furthers the intent of the propagandist" (Jowett and O'Donnell, 1992, 4). let also say that it relies on symbols, myths and irrational emotions.
Assumed that, relying on the definition you prefer for public diplomacy, i'd like you to think about the US public diplomacy over the last 60-70 years, about the role of the USIA and the Voice Of America during the cold war, the Shared Values Campaign, and Obama self-presentation and the rebranding of USA under his presidency, about the Hollywood's presentation of the American dream and finally on the americanization of the world that occurred since the end of the Cold War, then think about America victimizing itself after the 9/11 attacks and its campaign to support its illegal war on Iraq waged for the alleged possesion of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which ectually have never been found, and finally about the war on terror which is actually spreading more terror on us and increasing terror (Snow, 2009, 34).
Now you might think that I am doing counterpropaganda, however I just want to ask you whether you believe or not that american public diplomacy is propaganda. it is a kind of survey nothing more that that.
thanks

old and new diplomacy undermined by Israel

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7062807.ece

Today I came across an intereisting news in the Times (link above) about Israel expanding its settlements, building 1,600 homes in East Jerusalem, a district claimed by Palestinians for their future capital. Now, the odd point is not Israel further occupying Palestinian territories, it is doing so since 1948, the point I want to focus at is the fact that Israel is undermining its alliance with the USA. Israel is grown so powerfull that eventually it does not have to rely anymore on USA support; in fact it can be argued that Israel sought USA alliance because it is "a Jewish spot" in the Arab World and, as the past shows, there has been a tense climate between the Arab and the Jewish worlds in the Middle-East. However, as Giles Whittell, the autor of the article, said, "Mr Netanyahu has lost sight of the importance of US-Israeli relations and of the urgent need to build a coalition to isolate Iran before it threatens the region with nuclear weapons".
In this scenario, Israel is undermining its good and favorable relations with USA, its scarse relations with Palestine, worsening the Israel-Palestine issue, the mediatic role of the USA in the region, since Israel and Palestine agreed to negotiate only through the White House special envoy in the the Middle-East, Mr Mitchell, and is dismissing any chance to achieve a peace deal in the region.
Israel is following its line careless of the consequences probabibly because it is aware of its power.
It seems that in this situation diplomacy is a powerless tool; Israel decided not to rely neither on the multilater, new diplomacy, nor in the secret, old diplomacy, nor on the newest public diplomacy, it decided to run alone, and this will eventually pose a seriuos threat on the international sicurity for the foreseeable scenarios.

Traditional Diplomacy

Traditional diplomacy

As we all know diplomacy is seen as the art or practice of conducting international relations. States comes together in negotiating alliances, treaties and agreements. However, “old” diplomacy was used by many countries to spy and disrupt other countries. Although we still have some degree of “old” diplomacy in the contemporary world, one can argue that diplomacy have evolved to a more modern art.

In the old days, states had only diplomatic relations between them selfs, today we have other actors joining the table when states are engaging in their diplomatic relations. For instance WTO are mediating in the US-Brazil cotton dispute. This is taking us a far away from the “old” way of conducting diplomacy. These days other actors plays an important role and this sometimes gives the underdog better chance in pursuing their goals when engaging in a diplomatic encounter with a more powerful and resourceful opponent.

The link with the article below shows how the WTO as an actor provides Brazil with more firepower in their diplomatic 'trade struggle'.

http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15656630

Zumas' idea...

Sir Harold Nicolson said that the function of diplomacy is “the management of international relations by negotiation.” This comment is relevant in terms of both ‘new’ and ‘old’ diplomacy. We cannot expect an establishment that has developed over the extensive period of time to either disappear or be replaced with another entirely. As with all systems concepts will change over time but some aspects- generally the core concept- will remain to uphold the idea.

If we take a look at what both encompass we could get a better idea of the development of diplomacy. ‘Old’ diplomacy tended to be secretive as well as forceful at times with regards to wars. It was also a form of high politics. ‘New’ diplomacy on the other hand has adopted public diplomacy, the inclusion of non-state actors, multilateral conferences and has embraced technological advancements.

Since the creation of the Government of National Unity (GNU) in Zimbabwe little else has been in the press with regards to this matter. It was only in the recent visit of South African president Jacob Zuma to London that this issue has been bought back to my attention. During his visit Gordon Brown and Jacob Zuma discussed the current sanctions as well as general situation of Zimbabwe, they came to no conclusion but did try and show a united front.

“We have agreed to put our heads together so Zimbabwe can move forward.”

Jacob Zuma, March 2010

This statement struck me a quite odd, as haven’t we been through this all before? Former South African president Thabo Mbeki stated a very similar thing while trying to negotiate a deal between the ZANU and PF. This colossal task of creating a democratic and united government was considered a success but it appears that even though the process was put into place little has really changed within the country. Public diplomacy has played an extensive role in this matter and continues to though the current sanctions. So we have to wonder, if we were still practicing the ‘old’ diplomacy would we have become involved with the issue of Zimbabwe? Probably not. Public diplomacy only becomes relevant with the development of globalization yet we cannot disregard ‘old’ diplomacy as secret meetings surely took place.

Zimbabwe is a long way from what it once was or could possibly be but what we can be certain of is that for there to be any development there will continue to be extensive negotiations, not only with South Africa but with the international community.

By highlighting the changes in diplomacy I have discovered that some concepts are unwavering and that the ‘new’ diplomacy could not exist without the continuation and support of the ‘old’ diplomacy. I would hope that one day the need for ‘old’ diplomacy will not exist but as the world stands today it is very significant.

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88066

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8548916.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/07/zimbabwe.southafrica1

Old and New Diplomacy: "Superficial" Distinction

The distinction in basic terms between the old and new diplomacy is clearly hyperbolized. This distinction is more connected with the style and method rather than the essence of its functionality. The real change that can be addressed is that the exterior of diplomacy is in continuous renewal, because the bottom of diplomacy stays the same, like human nature, the nation states will have only one way to resolve their differences between them, and the word of an honest man is always the best tool that a government may serve to deliver their points of view.

In other words, there is a distinction between two periods of diplomatic activity and its methods, yet, it can be argued that the essence of its functionality remains and conjuncts both periods nowadays.

In 2008, the pro-Tibet attacks in Paris during the Olympic Torch relay triggered a tense atmosphere in Sino-French relations. There were several boycotts to French products made by Chinese people. Instead of directly deal with any Chinese member of state (so called New diplomacy), the French president Nicolas Sarkozy wrote a letter of support and sympathy to the Chinese athlete who had carried the Olympic torch. The tension was intensified when Sarkozy met Dalai Lama in Poland. The media of both countries suggested (speculation) that the Sino-French relations were breaking apart, while ambassadors of both countries had been meeting the respective working-place government to deal with the euphoric situation (Old Diplomacy). Both governments agreed that the whole situation was magnified by the media and that Sino-French relations were never undermined.

In this situation it can be affirmed that both “diplomacies” were represented. The new diplomacy was made by the media when magnified the meeting between Sarkozy and Dalai Lama while the old diplomacy had been in practice when the ambassadors had their meetings. Which demonstrates the relevance of old diplomacy conjucted with new methods (New diplomacy)

The new diplomacy is in my opinion a contemporary cherry in a traditional made cake.

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/French-emissaries-to-Beijing,-Chinese-government-blocks-irrational-nationalism-12068.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7356107.stm

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/10/content_10796501.htm

The Modernisation of Old Diplomacy

www.cnn.com/2009/world/asiapcf/08/04/nkorea.clinton/index.html

The New Diplomacy is the modernisation of the Old Diplomacy. We are still witnessing the same principles which were implemented in the Old type of diplomacy, being used in the so called New diplomacy. The Old Diplomacy has so much relevance in the way New diplomacy is conducted, there is still negotiations between bilateral states. Even though we now have multilateral actors we have seen events were the old system is used, such as the release of two American Journalist who were imprisoned in North Korea. Bill Clinton went secretly to North Korea and saw the release of these prisoners on the 4th of August 2009. This diplomatic mission was conducted in a very secretive manner , no details of what was negotiated have been said in public. The negotiation was similar to the Old diplomacy thereby showing the relevance to the New diplomacy.

If we take a close look at the way the Greeks conducted their diplomacy we can see similarities with the New Diplomacy. The Greeks conducted their diplomacy openly and publicly, debates were carried out in public and arguments used by ambassadors were openly aired. This type of old diplomacy is the one being used in New Diplomacy era.

The only difference between the Old Diplomacy and the New Diplomacy is the frequent involvement of multilateral actors such as NGOs, Summitry and Media. However it does not mean that Old diplomacy is irrelevant but its core principles of negotiations are still used in these meetings. There have been multilateral negotiations events such as the GATT which have yielded successful which saw the formation of the WTO.

Another example is the event which is happening right now which shows the relevance of the Old diplomacy is the visit of the United States of America vice president Joe Biden to Israel, he has gone there to negotiate about the existing issue between Israel and Palestine. The whole concept of negotiation is pretty much relevant to this day.

I personally feel Old diplomacy is very relevant in the New Diplomacy. I see New Diplomacy as the mordenisation of the Old Diplomacy. Since now there is Globalisation, so has the need to work together risen.

Traditional diplomacy

New Diplomacy evolved from the ‘old Diplomacy’ – as we have seen in previous entries in the blog about the ‘Evolution of Diplomacy’, modern diplomacy began with the creation of permanent missions between states in the fifteenth century. Although old diplomacy was playing a very important part in the international system, people realized that the world was changing and they had to change with it. Creating a new phenomenon known as ‘New Diplomacy’, which arguably consist of open negotiations and transparency. But this does not however mean that old diplomacy is irrelevant in modern times, but rather it has some additional values. Historically for example the United States – Venezuela relations has almost always been closed, which was characterized by dispute on important trade and investment relationship and cooperation in combating the production of illegal drugs (i.e. cocaine). Nonetheless, new US president Barack Obama came to power with a new strategy/approach to their relationship.

(if image not found please click on the following link) http://www.venworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/chavez

In a potentially significant step towards repairing their fractured relationship, the United States and Venezuela have formally agreed to resume full diplomatic relations. The additional values are clearly quoted in the photograph above it reads: “the art of making our enemies feel good about being our enemies.” This is Obama’s new diplomacy towards Venezuela.

Finally one could argue that diplomatic representation is very ancient, in the form of envoys from sovereign to sovereign, which still takes place in modern times with diplomats representing their states all around the world. Therefore it could be agued that old diplomacy is still relevant in the international system.

Sorry forgot the picture (Hillary Clinton, Lula and Celso Amorin)

Old Diplomacy for Modern Issues (?)

I am going to consider this question in relation to a current topic which is making headlines at the moment in relation to Brazilian politics: the Iranian nuclear debate.

Hilary Clinton, the US Secretary of State recently visited Brazil in an attempt to get our government to vote with the US on the Security Council when the debate comes up about the sanctions to impose on Iran. The US are of course pushing for the toughest sanctions. However our President, Lula, has rejected these proposals.

I believe that this rejection came about, at least partly, due to the Americans using more modern forms of diplomacy. Traditionally the communication lines between ambassadors and those more senior in the government may have been kept more private and subsequently the President of Brazil may have been more willing to take advice from those who have the most exposure to the Iranian situation. However, with the Secretary of State coming to personally push the plans, the media becomes heavily involved and the decision is no longer solely related to the Iranian issue. By conducting relations in the public eye such as this, our President has to consider his own image much more. As the most respected left wing president in Latin America, Lula must be concerned about his image if he toes the American line. As such, supporting the US could have a damaging effect on his own political standing. While through old forms of diplomacy, it is likely that his support could have been kept private until the crucial time nearer to the vote.

Indeed many who are closest to this situation feel that a resolution cannot be achieved through mediation, Cláudio Luiz dos Santos Rocha, the former Brazilian ambassador to Iran (Tehran) has claimed recently, in response to this issue (link below) that sanctions are the only way to move forward and achieve an end to this. He has not been the ambassador since 2001 but his exposure to the situation cannot be denied. Perhaps if this was not such a public debate, and more traditional methods of diplomacy had been used, the Brazilian President may have been more willing to listen to those who had the most experience, and to take a decision with just this issue in mind.

I feel that the developments in society have forced a new type of diplomacy to emerge: the globalisation of all aspects of our society, and the increased media attention worldwide means that the public demand exposure and answers to even the most sensitive of political issues. This kind of access would not have been available under the old forms of diplomacy; in fact many issues were resolved without the media being aware that there was any negotiation taking place.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/03/03/brazil.us.iran/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/03/04/us.iran/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/03/world/AP-LT-Clinton-Brazil-Iran.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=hillary%20clinton%20in%20brazil&st=cse

http://veja.abril.com.br/100310/bombinha-diplomatica-p-084.shtml

Kashmir: Conflict Resolution?

The timeline of the Indian and Pakistani conflict has spanned from the 1940’ up until today. The main issue of divergence is territorial over the Kashmir region which geographically lies between India and Pakistan. Militants of Afghani, Arab and Pakistani origin have proliferated and have since occupied the region waging conflict against the Indian Military. Amidst accusations of mass genocide and war crimes perpetrated by India, there have been more Kashmiris who are rallying for unification with Pakistan or the creation of a new Kashmiri state. In recent times it seems as though both camps are prepared to negotiate after waging one of the longest conflicts in modern history. The Prime minister of India has even commented positively by saying that anything could be negotiated and that the sky was the limit .

Old diplomacy has played a role in getting to this stage and is still relevant today , I say this because there was an element of secrecy as reports suggest that the spirit of negotiation between the two was hastened by secret back channel talks between the two countries that begun during General Musharraff’s tenure. The New Yorker claims that for several years envoys from both countries met secretly in London, Bangkok and Dubai negotiating the end of conflict in Kashmir which has now resulted in open talks between the two countries, mediated by President Obama. White clearly argues that there are many reason why secrecy is important by stating that “No good card or chess player reveals his or her hand in advance, and diplomatic negotiations are similar to these games in important respects” (White :2005:Page 390)

The bilateral element of the talks between India and Pakistan also show the relevance of old

diplomacy today. It is relevant in that Kashmir is a sensitive issue for both countries and to protect the negotiation process and avoid humiliation at home over possible solutions ,secrecy and exclusivity were essential at that time. One of the tenets of Old diplomacy is that the subject matter is often about high politics, the idea that war or open conflict might occur. In the case of Pakistan and India the posibble end to the conflict was discused, as the escalation of conflict caused by jihadists during the Mumbai bombings 2008 and pressure to retaliate had to be diffused. The fact that both of these countries are nuclear powers is a threat to regional and global peace in the event that these hostilities escalate to war.

However in as much as traditional diplomacy is still very much an important feature in international relations, in modern diplomacy there exists a space where governments have to gain the support at home and abroad so as to secure stability in the event of an agreement. Riordan further explains by stating that “Within the postmodern world, the breakdown of the division between domestic and foreign policy, the increasing importance of the media(both electronic and interactive)… mean that the public matter more than before”(Riordan 2003 :Pg123) . Already this expectation is being brought to bear on the Indian government as the Indian parliament are demanding accountability, openness and also public engagement in any concession in the Jammu –Kashmir region . It’s a very tight rope to walk on for any government involved In potential volatile negotiations of this nature, but it does reflect the relevance of old diplomacy in modern international relations.
Links and Sources:
http://www.newyorker.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233419
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/
The New Diplomacy:Sean Riordan 2003
Diplomacy: Brian White in The Globalization of World Politics 3RD Edition by J. Bayliss and S. Smith 2005

embassies and intelligence services: the perpertation of the old diplomacy

The forces of globalization are deeply changing and shaping the international scenario, affecting the individual nation states as well as the way they interact with each others. In fact it can be argued that globalization, promoting a grater interconnectedness among states, is leading to further progresses in the new diplomacy advocated by W. Wilson. This can lead to think that the new diplomacy is taking precedent over the old one, which nowadays can be considered obsolete.
Although it is true that nowadays diplomacy is more open, inclusive and more focused on issues of law politics, it remains, as Morgenthau stated, the main way to promote the national interests by peaceful means 1, and this is why the old diplomacy is still relevant today.
In a world dominated by a realist view, nation states are concerned about matters on national security and want to maximize their national interests, and the main institution of the old diplomacy, the embassy, well serves these aims. In fact, although many scholars argue that embassies are losing their functions, and others, such as Jozef Batora and Brian Hocking 2, claim that embassies are accommodating the occurring changes, the embassies are still the locations of secret information gathering, the meeting point of bilateral relations, and the place where diplomats come to bilateral agreements.
An example supporting the relevance of the old diplomacy in the contemporary scenario is the case of the United States re-engaging diplomatic relations with Syria, re-opening the US embassy in Damascus, with the purpose to cut the Syria-Iran relations, intending to isolating Teheran in order to push the latter to abandon the nuclear programme 3. In this case diplomacy is a matter of high policy, is exclusive, since it is aimed at the isolation of Teheran, and secrecy might play an important role in the negotiations between Washington and Damascus.
The point is that no one can guarantee that "modern Treaty of London" occurs in the contemporary world since many states enjoy the privileges of embassies where secret diplomacy can be undisturbed carried on, supported by intelligence services. In fact it can be argued that the intelligence services and the Official Secret Acts do not encourage an open diplomacy, but reinforce the old one.
Overall, it is true that multilateral diplomacy is acquiring more importance, and the increased number of summits shows this, but this does not mean the irrelevance of the old diplomacy. In fact, as it emerges from the framework presented above, the old diplomacy is perpetrated by the presence of permanent embassies and the the role of the intelligence services, so that it can be argued that old and new diplomacy coexist is the contemporary international system.


1 Russell, R., ‘American Diplomatic Realism: A Tradition Practised and Preached by George F. Kennan’ in , Vol. 11, No. 3, 2000 p 163
2 Jozef Batora and Brian Hocking, “EU-Oriented Bilateralism: Evaluating the Role of Member State Embassies in the European Union”

In defense of bilateral diplomacy: the Swedish embassy

Over time states acquired a role of main players in the international arena from the Treaty of Westphalia which set up a state-centred international system to the UN Charter which acknowledged the equal sovereignty of all UN members (1). States have always interacted with each others for a wide range of reasons from trade matters, to economic issues and political confrontations. A great role in this relationship between states has been played by the permanent embassies and by the bilateral diplomacy defined as the “exchange of diplomatic representation between national governments” (2).
However it can be argued that, today, bilateral diplomacy is undermined by multilateralism and globalization as the case of the European diplomatic machinery taking precedent over bilateral diplomacy between EU members shows, posing the question whether EU bilateral missions fit within the European integration (3).
Still there is who oppose this view and today, 3rd of March, it has been interesting listening to the point of view of a diplomat about the role of embassies in the contemporary situation.
A diplomat from the Swedish embassy introduced us with his embassy and presented us the contemporary debate over the role of EU bilateral embassies in an integrated European scenario. He stressed that the people working within the Swedish embassy in London have been considerably reduced since the creation of the European diplomatic machinery has been formally established, especially because many of them have now been transferred to Brussels. In fact since the multilateral European diplomacy took over bilateral diplomacy, enormous budget cuts have been implemented, leaving any room for the specialists and increasing the job for the few diplomats still working for the embassy who have to be able to deal with many and different issues in a general way. Eventually this poses the question whether diplomats with a general, but not specialized, knowledge of the issues can operate in an efficient way as the specialists can do.
Then he argued that, although many people, some of his colleagues as well, question the role of permanent embassies in EU countries, bilateral diplomacy between EU members is a matter of understanding and clarification of European concerns between them, and that now a days European matters are brought to the table, so affirming that the diplomatic service now is not in a situation of vacuum but is accommodating the changing situation. Though, sadly he has to admit that some European embassies are closing down in some European capitals such as the Swedish in Dublin and Luxembourg.
On the second part of the meeting it has been interesting seeing how the Swedish diplomat dealt with our questions about the nature of embassies and the challenges they have to face.
He has been asked about the secret diplomacy that bilateralism encourages and he replayed that, although many countries are deeply involved within it, that is not the case of Sweden which carries a diplomacy as much open as it can.
Another question he has been asked was about the challenges the new technologies poses on diplomacy, yet he argued that physical presence is a key point for diplomatic relations.
He also has been asked whether multilateral diplomacy opposes to the pursuit of the promotion of national interests, and he absolutely agreed with it stating that when the issue is brought to the multilateral table, the outcome never reflects the national interests since it is the result of the “consensus” of the participants.
Overall it has been interesting listening to a diplomat, well aware of the debates going on about the role of bilateralism, defending his position in this challenging environment, stressing the understanding of the culture and hot issues that permanent embassies allow. In fact, though it can be argued that Europeans share a common history, culture and environment, we are very different state from state to state and personally I see the importance of a deep knowledge and understanding among us, and permanent embassies are a good tool for that.
thanks to Rebecka, who organized the visit, and to the Swidish Embassy which welcomed us.




1. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
2.Jozef Batora and Brian Hocking, “EU-Oriented Bilateralism: Evaluating the Role of Member State Embassies in the European Union”
3.Jozef Batora and Brian Hocking, “EU-Oriented Bilateralism: Evaluating the Role of Member State Embassies in the European Union”