Changing ones ideas

Question: What do you understand by the word diplomacy?
Answer: Diplomacy is the relationship and conversing of parties/ states in an international arena.

This was the question proposed to us on our first day of ‘The New Diplomacy’ module followed by my very naive answer. While fundamentally true, I had no idea that the subject of diplomacy was going to entail so much and at the same time involve no foreign policy what so ever. (A rookie mistake I grant you!)

Since then I have come to discover an array of topics within the module which were fascinating, as well as a varied history that has developed according to society in each particular era. I tended to think of diplomacy only in relation to conflict but have been pleasantly surprised to find that it relates to all fields. When we watch the news or hear of certain stories we don’t tend to think of all that goes on behind the scenes yet the process is immense. This module has broadened my scope and has changed my views with regards to politics, NGO’s and negotiation; and the way it is conducted. The different ways that a government approaches these dilemmas and the relationships between countries are so dynamic and at times so sensitive that diplomacy is really the only option.

I have personally found that diplomacy in relation to security is the most fascinating as it involves not only the public forum but the secret one as well. It is here that you truly see negotiation developing into an art form. It encompasses more that just one countries relationship with another but rather with international society as a whole.

With the development of globalisation the need for diplomacy on an international level has increased. It is quite possibly the most important factor of our global society as without it we would not have trade agreements, international security or environmental policies. It is embedded in every part of our system even without our full knowledge and as society develops diplomacy will continue to do so as well. This module has been called ‘The New Diplomacy’ as it has stemmed out of what we consider the ‘old’ diplomacy but with the rapid development of technologies and our world in general what we call ‘new’ at this moment won’t be for very long.

Explaining diplomacy a different way:

My understanding of diplomacy today

At the beginning of this module my knowledge of diplomacy and diplomatic relations was very limited. For me diplomatic relations was something conduct by only diplomats and head of states. However, as the module progressed I have come to realize that this is not the reality of diplomacy, especially modern diplomacy.

Diplomacy is more than interstate relations, diplomacy have evolved from being a local thing into a global phenomenon. The idea of communication, negotiation and keeping in touch with other actors has been important for actors in the international system many centuries ago. Furthermore, the evolution of diplomacy together with globalization have brought new tools and actors such as new technology and NGO’s.

Non-state actors introduction to diplomacy has been characterised by constant change. NGO’ and other non-state actors has had a profound effect on how diplomatic relations in the 21st century is conducted. They have transformed diplomatic relations from being formal to informal by bringing in other important issues to the negotiation table. Important issues such as the environment, poverty and global warming. NGO’s influence on diplomacy has been very positive and effective due to technology. Technological instruments have aided NGO’s in shaping diplomatic relations. Furthermore, technology have made it easier for actors to conduct public diplomacy much more effective than it was a couple of decades ago.

I have learnt a great deal during this module. My basic knowledge on diplomacy and diplomatic relations has increased, by providing me with a better understanding of international relations. The world is in constant change and the way in which we view it and participate in it is also changing. Therefore, we must change and adapt to the new surroundings.

The change of opinions and role of diplomacy in world politics

If one says that their opinions about diplomacy hasnt changed since learning more about diplomacy they would be untruthfull. My opinion has changed when it comes to diplomacy, as the lectures progressed and when doing my research i have come to realise that diplomacy is not about political issues only. I have come to realise that diplomacy does not only involve formal state delegates (traditional diplomacy) being sent to other states to represent a state.

I have come to understand the important role the NGO's and Civil Societies play when it comes to diplomacy. Before i did not view this organisations as diplomats but now i see and understand their roles. Also going back on the point i mentioned above about political issues i am aware now that there are different areas of diplomacy such as trade and development diplomacy, environment diplomacy etc.

However having mentioned what I have learnt about diplomacy, there has been a part when comparing 'Old' diplomacy and 'new' diplomacy that i felt that there is not much of a difference comparing the two. I felt the 'new' diplomacy was just a polished version of 'old' diplomacy were because of the evolving times certain players and issues had to be accomodated.

I have also enjoyed reading and writing about trade negotiations. I have done indepth research on trade negotiation complexity, I was enlightened so much it gave me an indepth understanding of how trade negotiations are carried out.

I have really enjoyed this module and certainly my opinion has changed.

How my understanding of Diplomacy has changed throughout the module

The basic idea of diplomacy that i had prior to the start of the module was that, considering its title it revolved predominantly around diplomats, and secondly that it was a world used to cover inter-state relations through diplomats.
However my understanding of the term has changed considerably in certain ways as i now understand it to encompass not only the actions and purpose of diplomats and inter-state relations, but also many other practices such as ambassadors, embassies and consulates.
Also i have come to understand the many roles in which these institutions act such as IGO's and summits/negotiations and other groups that have an influence and inportance such as NGO's.
In general, my knowledge, which was basic at the start has not changed much, however it can be said that it has deepend, providing me with a greater understanding of what diplomacy is and how it works and shapes the world.

Understanding Diplomacy

Initially I viewed diplomacy as actors coming to an agreement to resolve conflict. So far , I have learnt that diplomacy is more than just negotiations between actors , it also an institution. Leguey –Feilleux states that “…the concept of diplomacy is the idea of communicating, interacting, maintaining contact and negotiating with states and other international organizations. Leguey- Feillleux : 2009, 1) The role of non state actors like NGO’s has also shown a dynamic change in diplomacy and has had a profound effect on how negotiation is conducted. For example, a group of NGO’s started the movement to ban landmines and support those affected by landmines . This culminated In the UN supporting the campaign and the OAU adopting the resolution. I have also learnt that diplomacy has its roots in antiquity but due to changing trends in international politics it has adapted to encompass several modes of diplomacy and other subjects including the environment and poverty . Technology has also played a role in shaping diplomacy as we know it today, creating greater circles of communication. Bilateral diplomacy still exists when communication needs to be guarded, and sometimes backchannels are used to secure talks. Another important feature that I have learnt about is the importance of the public at home and abroad which has led to the increased use of public diplomacy . As global politics change , we are likely to see diplomacy change and adapt to suit the international relations.
Sources
Leguey- Feilleux J.R, The Dynamic of Diplomacy , 2009, Lynne Rienner publishers

What I have learnt so far

It would be safe to say that one was fairly ignorant about the role of diplomacy in this complex and almost unpredictable world. For at the beginning of this module, one’s ideas of diplomacy were limited to traditional diplomacy, the role of formal ambassadors representing their country in another state. However though, as time went on and after attending many lectures (not to mention the visit to the Swedish Embassy) on New Diplomacy, it started to become clear to me what diplomacy really is – and its role in international politics.

One of the main changes in diplomacy seems to be the transitional stage in the social, political and economic evolution of states and their relations with each other. Then again this is not a new practice some may argue; but like diplomacy itself, it changes constantly according to given circumstances. For example the current economic crisis in Greece are causing a few diplomatic actions to help convince other EU members such as Germany to help bail the country out of its financial problems, before it goes bankrupt. There have been a number of meetings of representatives of many European Union member-states to discuss the Greek crisis, which is a diplomatic action. Nonetheless, whether this diplomatic action will be successful remains to be seen.

In addition to that, there is a multitude of issues on the way diplomacy is performed. But one of the major concerns (in my view) is the failure of members of the international community to act in accordance with the UN Charter to which they are committed and legally bound (i.e. the Israel-Palestine conflict).

file:///Users/osmandiallo/Desktop/israel-palestine-conflict.jpg

for more information on the Israel-Palestine war, please visit: http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

Module Reflections

Looking back on my first impressions of the subject and what I recorded during the first lecture, it is clear that my knowledge on the subject has developed and that I have a much broader understanding of world politics and diplomacy. I feel that my knowledge previously was limited and indicated that I had not fully understood the true breadth of politics and the diplomatic world.

I now understand that diplomacy is not confined to just political issues that are discussed by heads of state. Instead diplomacy is a very wide term that encompasses a vast amount of topics, issues, people, countries and organizations (private and non-governmental).

Each week we have studied a new area, a new aspect of diplomacy and the impact that this had/has on world politics. We have often discussed the question marks surrounding the need for diplomats that the world has and whether the large number is really necessary: particularly popular is the example of the EU which many see as a duplication of the role of embassies and diplomats in each country and question whether each country needs these diplomats and embassies when the EU exists. However, many people (and including me prior to our discussions) do not see the true extent of diplomacy and all the negotiations that go on these days in our globalised society.

I feel that the visits to the embassies has helped to strengthen my knowledge and enlightened us to the importance of diplomats today and the significant work that they do, both in the public eye and behind the scene in order to keep order in such a broad range of subjects such as economics, foreign policy, the environment and more. The Swedish embassy showed us the importance of these diplomats even with the European Union and the Ghanaian High Commission emphasized the importance of the variety of areas in which an embassy works.

Relations

“The effectiveness of public diplomacy is measured by minds changed, not dollars spent or slick production packages.” Joseph S Nyr, Jr

The relationship between the USA and Israel has always been one of friendship but recently this relationship has begun to show signs of deterioration. With the recent visit of Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington, DC, the announcement of the 1,600 apartments that are to be built for Jews in East Jerusalem was certainly ill timed. For the Obama administration this was unacceptable as it has all of the signs of occupation. In a speech that Hillary Clinton gave at the Aipac (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee) conference in Washington, DC, she denounced the building of settlements in Israel and said that it would not be tolerated. She ended of her speech by saying,

“As Israel's friend, it is our responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it is needed.”

The building of apartments in Jerusalem will greatly hinder the peace making process in Israel and with everything there is to loose in a situation like this Israel does not seem to be taking it seriously but is more concerned with the current situation in Iran. While Iran’s condition could possibly compromise their security surely they should be looking closer to home first.

Roger Cohen wrote an interesting article in the New York Times on this situation and the relationship between these two countries. He likened it to the Cold War US/Soviet relationship by saying,

“It fell to Benjamin Netanyahu the Israeli Prime Minister, to play the role Khrushchev once played in toughening up a young American President.”

Could this be why Israel decided to announce their construction plans while Netanyahu was on a state visit? Was he trying to test the boundaries of the new administration? Quite possibly. This issue did overshadow the Iran talks though and recently Netanyahu has been trying to push this to the forefront. If this was his intention is has backfired considerably.

The influence of the US on Israel has always been considerable and it doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon. Until an effective peace process has been implemented America will continue to influence Israel’s dealings with Palestine and so it is in the best interest of Israel to cooperate and come to some sort of agreement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/22/hillary-clinton-warns-israel-peace

http://www.aipac.org/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8587814.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/opinion/30iht-edcohen.html?ref=opinion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP4S0iMpai8

An Overall Understanding of Diplomacy

First of all I have to say that I’ve really enjoyed the module and that the blog, that at the beginning gave me some concerns, has been a useful tool to share ideas with my colleagues and to express my ideas. Thanks to the participants, who made the blog an interesting and stimulating activity, and to Steven Curtis who allowed us to get involved in a different approach to our studies than the usual academic one.
The module gave me the opportunity to learn how states interact with each others through their diplomatic machinery, either publicly and secretly. In fact though I do not share the idea that secret diplomacy is fair, especially in democratic societies, I’ve understood that sometimes it is the only tool to resolve international crisis, as the Cuban Missile Crisis shows. In fact in this situation backchannels played a fundamental role to escape a nuclear war (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/16/anatoly-dobrynin-obituary, for the role of Anatoly Dobrynin as key actors to resolve crises through backchannels).
Moreover the module has been helpful to clarify the role played by NGOs and non state actors in diplomatic talks, and their ability to matter in the international scenario, since they can lobby for the issues at stake for their interests; I found an interesting case of an Italian NGO, Emergency, which successfully lobbed, conducting a parallel diplomacy, to realise some of its members arrested in Afghanistan for the allegation of being involved in a conspiracy against the government (for more details see http://it.peacereporter.net/articolo/21433/Emergency%2C+da+piazza+San+Giovanni, if you need translation contact me). The NGO brought a considerable number of people on the streets to protest for the event and carried diplomatic talks with both the Afghan Foreign and Home Secretaries and with the Afghan vice-president as well (ibid.), and eventually succeeded in obtaining its members’ realise. This case clearly shows that nowadays NGOs have a greater role on the international relations, especially thanks to their “parallel Diplomacy”.
Furthermore throughout the module I understood that nowadays diplomats are no longer the only ones who conduct diplomacy, common people are more involved in it especially in public diplomacy, as Mark Leonard says “Britain has 60 million budding ambassadors” (Leonard and Alakeson, 2000) . In fact the latter is aimed at addressing the people, because especially in democratic society they are able to restrain their governments, and their governments have to please them.
Overall the module has been helpful in clarifying the importance of diplomacy in the present days. It is an effective tool to further the interests of the states, as public diplomacy shows, and of non-state actors as well, which carry a parallel, but still relevant, diplomacy. It is a tool to cooperate and reach agreements on an international level, as the case of multilateral diplomacy on environment demonstrates. And finally it could be the most powerful tool to overcome wars, and even prevent them.
Though it is important to bear in mind that despite diplomatic efforts to come together, states ultimately emphasize their national interests and diplomacy is the main tool they use to do it and that is why sometimes is so difficult to reach diplomatic agreements.

Leonard M. and Alakeson V., 2000, “Going Public: Diplomacy for the Information Society”, Foreign Policy Centre.

On the death of Ambassador Dobrynin

A fine obituary for Anatoly Dobrynin, who died earlier in the month, can be found at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/16/anatoly-dobrynin-obituary

It pays attention to his role as an important "back channel" between the White House and the Kremlin during the Cold War, which allowed the superpowers to resolve many contentious issues away from the glare of publicity.

Traditional Diplomacy?

Much has been made of the distinction between the 'old' and 'new' diplomacies. The 'old' diplomacy has been characterised as relying on secret meetings between narrow élites, in contrast to the 'new' diplomacy, which emphasises openness and transparency.

Old diplomacy has been criticised as being too dependent on convention, i.e. relying on an almost unwritten code of formalities and protocol, that may have proved workable during the age of European hegemony, when there was a shared culture between those actors engaged in diplomacy. But when diplomacy began to open up to non-European powers, these conventions had to be formalised, and simplified - leading inevitably to profound change.

However, some aspects of the old diplomacy remain crucial. For instance, the importance of diplomatic staff maintaining personal links with their foreign counterparts and maintaining trust. In some occasions, maintaining trust in a relationship involves keeping secrets, as it is essential that some things that are said in back rooms in confidence, not be broadcast by the other party.

Rethinking secret diplomacy: a good citizen need to be informed

In today’s seminar we discussed about secrecy in diplomacy and almost unanimously we agreed that secret negotiations can be useful to manage difficult situations of crisis, as the Cuban Missile Crisis showed. However during the seminar discussion a question came up in my mind. Is it fair that the population, and let it say I’m talking about us, citizens, people, individuals, live happy lives ignoring what is going on around us? Is it fair that we are “amused to death” (Postman, 1985), to use Neil Postman expression, distract by TV shows, celebrity gossip, sex, the myth of the wealthy life, and sleazy issues while our governments enhance their interests which often do not reflect ours as citizens?
Personally I would say NO, it is not fair! Secret negotiations are acceptable in situation of crisis but not in decision-making process that concern our lives as citizens.
Let me provide two examples for my argument. First the Lisbon Treaty, how many EU citizens know what does the Lisbon Treaty state? I would say a very little minority of us. Everybody talks about it, but barely none knows how is gonna affect our lives. And let me say that I do not blame us, I would rather blame the governments that are keeping secret it.
The second example I would provide is the secret negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreements (ACTA), carried by the EU, USA and Japan where anything has been published (Digital Majority, 2009 http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-146371/secret-european-union-mandate-to-negotiate-acta-leaked:fears-confirmed) and which will have great impact on our lives. There are concerns that ACTA may “limit access to medicines, limit access to the internet, give patent trolls free reign and harm the most innovative sectors of the economy” (ibid.), however the public is not being informed about it and negotiations are running behind closed doors, so that when everything will be agreed and negotiated, ACTA will be implemented and the population will not have a say about it. It seems all too logic no?
I’m not arguing against secret diplomacy a priori, I just want to underline that it cannot be the norm. Citizens need to be informed in order to be good citizens, otherwise we will continue to worry about trivial matters, to fill our lives with vanity and leave what really matters in elite groups’ hands, keeping on calling all of this democracy.
Pericle, a General of the ancient Athens, between 461 BC and 429 BC, understood something more than us about democracy and he showed it with this speech:
“Here in Athens we do like this, our government favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called democracy.
Here in Athens we do like this, the laws, here, afford equal justice to all in their private differences; but we never ignore reputation for capacity.
When a citizen has shown himself worthy, he will be, upon others, favored to serve the state, not as a privilege, but as a reward for worth, and poverty doesn’t bar the way.
Here in Athens we do like this. The freedom which we enjoy, extends also to our ordinary life.There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes. We are free, free to live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger.
Here in Athens we do like this: we have been taught, to respect magistrates, and we have been taught to obey the laws, and never to forget those who have been injured. And we have been taught to respect that code which, although unwritten, is based upon the universal feeling of what is right, and cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace.
Here in Athens we do like this: we see him who takes no interest in public matters not as unambitious but as useless, and although few are able to originate a politics, we all athenians are able to judge it. We don’t look on discussion as a stumbling-block in the way to democracy.
We believe that happiness originates from freedom, but freedom only originates from courage.
In short, I say Athens school of Hellas, and that every Athenians shows in himself a happy flexibility, self trust, and readiness to face any situation. And this is why we throw open our city and never by alien acts exclude foreigners.” (Pericle quoted in Pietro Speroni http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2006/07/13/here-in-athens-we-do-like-this/)
(for the full speech look at the Pietro Speroni web site http://blog.pietrosperoni.it/2006/07/13/here-in-athens-we-do-like-this/)

China and the World

Shanghai will soon host the world’s largest expo fair: a cultural and economic show expected to attract millions of visitors from over 100 countries. It is the ultimate show of public diplomacy and is themed “Better city – Better life”.

It is another very public example of how China is trying to shed its old image and for all of the world to see the “better city” that is Shanghai. China is attempting to move itself into the mainstream of politics in the sense that they can be open negotiators and positive trade partners. It cannot do this while the rest of the world harbour concerns about issues such as human rights and the socialist regime in place. A country so powerful that does not conform to the ‘Western’ view of the world has always previously been thought of as very dangerous (Russia before the Cold War for example), and China, with this public diplomacy is attempting to alter this view.

The Chinese foreign minister claims that the world expo is at the top of the public diplomacy agenda for the Chinese. This shows just how important it is to China that the rest of the world do not feel threatened by their way of life and their politics. That such a show would generate such global interest is testament to the complete globalisation of politics in today’s society, and the subsequent importance of global diplomacy.

China continues to undermine its efforts at public diplomacy with incidents such as that with Google where the multinational search engine pulled out of China claiming that its accounts were being hacked in order to determine and subsequently ban certain users. China was effectively silent on the issue. Their politics are indeed different to what the majority of the developed world is used to.

The Olympic games in 2008 was the first real global attempt by the Chinese to engage in public diplomacy and while the games went without a serious hitch, it was clear to the rest of the world that China was not being totally honest: the national announcement to prevent citizens from wearing the facemasks used to protect against the Shanghai pollution, normally omnipresent in the city serves as an example of how China is attempting to open up to the rest of the world but only letting it see what it chooses for us to see.

It is phenomenal to think in the modern society that one country consistently attempts to block information from reaching the outside world, and from outside information reaching their people. China perhaps realises the damage that will be done to their public relations with the rest of the world if the (possible) truth about their country is revealed. Perhaps they need to take the next step; full public diplomacy, and accept the consequences that this holds, and perhaps the benefits that may be reaped if the world finally learns to trust China and its policies.

http://english.cri.cn/6909/2010/03/07/1821s554753.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-brown/chinas-public-diplomacy-h_b_515546.html

New Diplomacy

All aspects of new diplomacy are arguably indispensible within the institution. However the most important aspect in this case is public diplomacy – as this is reflected into the definition of new diplomacy. It is defined as a phenomenon in which citizens play a greater role in impacting international relations. Moving away from the tradition of secrecy, which was embedded in the old form of diplomacy, towards an era where the ordinary people not only have the opportunity to campaign for what they believe in, but also participate in influencing political decisions through peaceful means.

In general, public diplomacy helps promote its national interest through strategic communication and influencing foreign public attitude. This has proved to be working in many cases including the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, the campaigns against the Darfur crisis and the war in Iraq. However, there are various conflicting opinions about public diplomacy; many scholars believe that it is very similar if not the same as propaganda. Since propaganda can be based on facts such as communication, information and ideas to win people over a given doctrine, it could be equated to public diplomacy.

Given the fact that public diplomacy deals primarily with non-governmental individuals and organizations, its activities often present many differing views – but not necessarily propaganda. Public diplomacy is sometimes as simple as arranging student exchange programs between countries to help strengthen their relations henceforth. The idea that new diplomacy is a euphemism for propaganda is quite dated, and as we are moving from old to new diplomacy, we should also move away from the assumption that public diplomacy equal to propaganda.

Diplomacy and NGOs

Diplomacy has moved forward in many areas and particularly in relation to public diplomacy, non-state actors and multilateral diplomacy. All of these play an important role in modern diplomacy. In my view the aspect that stands out as being the most important is the impact of non-state actors, or non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

These organisations are gradually increasing in power and becoming more recognised in society and the political community. The internationalisation of world politics has brought with it an increased focus on the policies of governments around the world, and particularly those that have a global impact. It is common that governments in countries across the globe implement foreign policies which do not represent the views and beliefs of all those in the country as a whole, and while there have long been non governmental organisations in existence, it is only recently that they have began to adapt their approach so that they are not only an outlet for radical believers, but a serious member in the negotiating team.

Since the early global environmental meetings such as Stockholm in 1972, the politicians and diplomats have begun appreciating the benefits that non-governmental organisations can bring. These organisations often have a specific focus and consequently they can focus their resources and labour on this area. This means that they are often better positioned to have knowledge in these areas. In the more recent conferences, even as early as Rio 1992, select NGOs have been invited to play a role in the negotiations.

Similarly, The World Bank recently began engaging with NGOs: in order to obtain the local knowledge needed to successfully implement policies to countries in which the diplomats or negotiators may have had little knowledge. Many NGOs are potentially in a powerful position in the sense that they are often accepted by the locals or those directly affected by the issues at hand, and by the decision makers in government. This means that effectively they can act as the mediator in any negotiations. However their power is often limited by the fact that, apart from their cooperation, they rarely have anything to bargain with. They also often have a very narrow objective with one subject in mind, whereas the politicians and diplomats have to consider the wider picture.

Politics comes with the burden of the requirement to balance the needs of many people, whereas NGOs often have specific aims and objectives and can bring to the fore key areas or issues that may have previously been overlooked by the politicians. While they will never lead the negotiations, they now often play an important part.

The new diplomacy

Diplomacy has undergone a number of changes what with the effect of modern technology . However multilateral diplomacy represents a new development in diplomacy. It must be acknowledged that in terms of negotiations taking place between more than two polities , it is not that new as conferences can be dated back to Sparta in 430 B.C in ancient Greece and later during the Concert of Europe in 17th century Europe with Metternich, Castlereagh and other representatives meeting quite frequently. However what has changed is the proliferation of these Conferences after World war 2. The United nations has contributed to this as its activities mostly include conferences with country representatives. The newness of diplomacy comes
into play here with the fact that issues discussed at these conferences tend to cover a broader range of issues like trade and economics, tourism and other areas of interest as opposed to issues of war mainly in previous times .

According to Leguey –Feuilley this development is often attacked as being a corruption of diplomacy as a lot of the discussion take place under the eye of the media , but when discussions require confidentiality this type of diplomacy will be shielded away from publicity”(Leguey-Feuilley:2009, 218) Again the innovation is also represented by the inclusiveness of NGOs as partners in this type of diplomacy which is also directly linked to paradiplomacy ie the role of nonstate actors not only in conference diplomacy , that is , they are often included in conferences and sometimes form part of the body of government representatives at conferences. In the Earth Summit(1992) that took place in Rio De Janeiro to discuss climate issues , more members of NGO’s served and participated on government delegations than ever witnessed before . Leguey- Feuilly also explains that NGO representatives played a prominent role in the campaign to ban landmines as they were invited to join the French delegation at the 1996 Ottawa strategy conference(Leguey – Feuilley: 2009,107) It is evident that their input in multilateral diplomacy is quite important and represents a shift in that they have become part of the diplomatic process Apart from this we also have a situation where various sections of the UN are actively interacting with the rest of the world for example the UNESCO and UNDP actively engage with countries all over the world. Public diplomacy is also a new occurrence as more than ever diplomats are engaging with foreign publics to galvanize support for their country’s policies , way of life and culture . However in as much as it is a new development in diplomacy , multilateral diplomacy with its inclusivity is the most important development in diplomacy and it is expected to continue to evolve with the changes in global politics .

Sources

The new diplomacy Shaun Riordan 2003 Blackwell publishing

The dynamics of diplomacy Jean - Robert Leguey - Feuilley 2009 Lynne Rienner publishers

Global Influence

Over the past century diplomacy has developed at a rapid rate, with changing communicative technology and the increase in NGO and non-state actor participation people have begun to view their governments differently. They are no longer the only parties involved in the diplomatic process and this is where the term ‘new’ diplomacy comes in.

Even though the participation of non-state actors is vast, I believe that it is the NGOs which have the largest impact. They can be partly or fully funded by the public and so public opinion of them is generally quite high and important. A development in diplomacy is that people now expect NGOs to get involved in the diplomatic process in many instances, more so than governments and many years ago this certainly would not have been the case.

In view of public opinion NGOs are often seen as more trust worthy than governments, this is unfortunate for them but beneficial to NGOs. Of course over the year’s states have found a way of benefiting from this development by employing NGOs to partake in work which would not place them in a favourable light to either the public or other governments.

In recent years many countries have reduced their global networks and allowed NGOs to replace them. NGOs are often sought out as they can have more expertise in a particular area. Often the information acquired by such organisations would be more readily available to them so a government presence is not required. This of course leads to problems as many but not all NGOs are distrustful of governments. Another problem which can arise is the deniability aspect. An NGO is a legitimate institution but does not have to take responsibility in the same respect that a government has to; a government is answerable to its people while an NGO is not. NGOs can be larger and can encompass an international membership so often have more power for change than a government; this in itself can create a paradox for the state.

As this form of diplomacy is relatively new it has not yet been developed to its full potential or as of yet developed an established history. It is currently affecting our global politics in a way never conceived and only time will tell whether this ‘new’ diplomacy will be successful or not. As it currently stands though, NGOs have been successful in incorporating themselves into the diplomatic process and I can’t see them leaving any time soon.

The New Diplomacy

The New Diplomacy

International relations and the international political system in recent decades, and especially after the Cold War with the forces of globalisation has changed and brought new aspects of diplomacy. Aspects that competes with traditional diplomatic ideas of national sovereignty and the idea of state to state diplomatic relations. Developing countries, NGO’s, pressure groups, Multinational Corporations and other non-state actors have weakened the traditional diplomacy.

When it comes to international issues such as trade, environment, security, cultural, humanitarian and human rights, these new aspect have transformed traditional diplomacy to a more open and popular diplomacy where more people have the chance to involve in the diplomatic negotiations. Furthermore, with the immense improvement in information technology traditional embassies dot not have the monopoly of reporting on foreign information. A leader of a state can turn on the television or log on the internet for information on a particular issue. although, new technology have some what weakened the information “monopoly” that embassies have, they do not always offer concrete and reliable information that embassies do.

Another aspect is the use of international institutions and cooperation in react to catastrophes and other international crisis such as the recent financial crisis. The increase use of the UN as a mediator is really important aspect of the new diplomacy as this will easy tension between the involved parties. The financial crisis brought Europe into a “regional” diplomatic negotiation, where the European Central Bank played a major role.

In todays contemporary world, a great deal of international issues are “borderless” and this create the need of multilateralism, a great diplomatic tool. Multilateralism in the new diplomacy have made it easier for weaker actors to be heard.

In conclusion, we can all agree to the fact that diplomacy is evolving. Whether this new evolution is good or bad is up to individual research and believe to asses. However, I believe that these new aspects to improve the way diplomacy is conduct, in the sense that it brings in new actors to improve and make it more efficient. I also do believe in the importance of embassies and diplomats. Moreover, the fact that diplomacy in evolving do not mean that it has abandoned is classical aspect of bilateral and secrecy diplomacy.