Has Diplomacy Changed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting Article About American Military

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