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

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.

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.

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’?