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”