New blogs on the New Diplomacy

The students posting their thoughts on this blog have now completed the module. I have set up a series of new blogs for the students who are about to start the module this week. Please follow and comment on their work at:

http://thenewdiplomacya.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyb.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyc.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyd.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacye.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyf.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyg.blogspot.com/

The diplomacy of Global Village

As the world has become increasingly interconnected and interdependent, so does politics amongst states has entered different stage in the way they are conducted. In this globalized world the diplomacy had become a necessity in building up bridges amongst states in variety of issues. Looking back in the history, it is clearly evident that diplomatic activities were mainly in bilateral bases. Furthermore, the old diplomacy lacked the concept of transparency and openness and was of a main concern in regards of security issues. It is argued, it remained so till the end of the Cold War. It was after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the liberal democracy triumphed as the global ideology and led to the transformation in the conduct of diplomatic activities towards a new, transparent way of work. The notion of bilateral diplomacy began fading away, since the need of multilateral negotiations was the key element in establishing a new, peaceful international stage. And as states are not longer willing to fight a war in order to gain status of a super power, the role of diplomacy has increased its importance. In this sense, is inevitable not to mention the role of the public diplomacy, which has been widely accepted as a positive force, where diplomats had become co-ordinators, facilitators and catalysts in the establishment of dialogue between states. In contrary to the propagandistic way of communicating with foreign states, the contemporary public diplomacy is based on the notions of credibility and reliability to promote a positive image in international stage. And what actually the new diplomacy tends to do, is to create a long term relationship amongst states.

The international relations tend to be a lot more complex compared to the ones 20-30 years ago. Huge changes have taken place and especially the increasing role of NGO's in recent diplomatic activities. Inevitable, NGO's and civil service has proven successful on particular issues of global importance, such as climate change, human rights issues and so on. They have managed to gather public support towards these issues and they have been accepted to get involve in a diplomatic activities, which would not been accepted in the traditional diplomacy. NGO's have not only been able to lobby governments but they have also been able to represent underdeveloped states in a multilateral venues, such as the Johannesburg summit, Copenhagen summit, etc. However, NGO's still play a limited role in shaping policies, but they have managed to put pressure on government about certain issues.

As mentioned above, it could be argued, that diplomacy has evolved dramatically in recent years. But on the other hand, it is seen , that the core elements of the traditional diplomacy are still very much intact. Bilateral diplomacy, associated with secrecy and lack of openness still exist. However, at the end of the day, secret or not, diplomacy is the only way international affairs are conducted. But what is the new about diplomacy, is the fact, that it does not longer serve the interest of the few, but is rather trying to work towards the common good.

What is Diplomacy?

Honestly, there were so many interested things learned about diplomacy since the start of the module that is hard so say exactly what the main role of diplomacy is today. I admit in the first lecture when I was asked about the reasons why I have chosen the module, I was not confident about my answer, but today nearly at the end the module I would definitely tell that one of the main roles of diplomacy is to bring peace and dialogue between countries whether bilateral or multilateral diplomacy is used. Before we visited the Swedish Embassy, I would never guess the importance of embassies, because in my mind they are just involved on issuing visas for foreigners who want to visit their countries, issuing or renewing passports for their own nationals and representing their countries abroad. But when we were received by the Vice-Consul of the Swedish embassy who took his time to explain to us that the role of the embassy is more than just issuing visas and passports. For instance he told us that direct contact between personalities of two different countries is very important in the conduct of bilateral relations, meaning that technology is not the most important factor in diplomacy. He also explained how the embassy promotes their country’s brand abroad by working closely with their foreign investors. I understand know why Berridge argues that: ‘The resident embassy is still alive. It has survived the communications and transport revolutions... (Berridge, 2010, 123)’.
In short, I learned more about the embassy and the role played by their diplomats and that gives the envy to become a diplomat myself.
The second interesting factor that has really increased my knowledge in Diplomacy is without doubt the roles played by Non Government Organisations (NGOs). Before we start Multilateral Diplomacy, I could not weight how NGOs were important for states and how closely they were working with the United Nations (UN). This makes me stick to the argument of Ambassador Don Mills who says: ‘The right of NGOs to a presence during UN deliberations rests originally on provisions in Article 71 of the Charter, but the new situation goes far beyond the founders vision (Aviel et al, 2005, 34)’.
Before the module I was not aware that they were heavily involved the same way like the UN in Human Rights, Humanitarian Interventions, landmines etc...
Finally, I would say that the module has really motivated me to learn more about diplomacy and it has also makes me realised that we are all diplomats, to be conscious or not about it is something different.

My understanding of diplomacy today

The new diplomacy module has offered me a deeper understanding of the process of diplomacy. I cannot say that my opinions have radically changed, but I have got a chance to better understand, how it really works and I can better support my arguments. I can now give much more evidence about what I say. I have learnt some important historical facts about how the diplomacy has developed and got a chance to make a comparison between the old and new diplomacy. I have also realized how the public diplomacy is important and how it is used by states and all its limitations and advantages. I have realized some new facts about the embassies in foreign countries and mainly how those embassies work. It was very helpful to talk about all actors that act in the diplomatic process and how significant they are or eventually are not. I have recognized how particular actors in states’ governments are important in negotiating, for instance, the prime minister can sometimes overcome the foreign minister in negotiating and even negotiate without the foreign minister knowing about it. It is also related to secrecy in the diplomacy and that states are not like one unit, but there are many parts and departments in states that can even negotiate on their own.

My understanding of diplomacy today

I have recently listened to a podcast of Professor Brian Hocking from 2009 delivered in the Governance and International Relations Research Seminar Series at London Metropolitan University in which he stated that “the essence of diplomacy is communications”. At the beginning of the module my view about the discipline was concentrated on the relations among states and their skills of negotiation.


Ten weeks later, my scope of view broadened including non-state actors taking part in the negotiations and in this way multiplying the number of people involved in the discipline. Not only their number increased but also the matters diplomacy is concerned with- the “globalization” of the trade, the widening scope of environmental disasters spreading beyond state borders, and the disrespect of human rights by numerous governments. With the democratization of the state system and the freedom of expression the expectation for openness of the international diplomatic relations was and still is just ostensibly true. Nevertheless, the citizens find another way of participating indirectly in the profession of diplomacy- through membership in non-governmental organizations, signing petitions or moratoriums etc.
Now, my opinion expanded to that

Diplomacy did not lose its essence; it won complexity of matters and actors cooperating and integrating themselves into the discipline.
Pictures borrowed from:
• www.blogs.worldbank.org/governance/page?page=1
• www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/02/shaking-hands.jpg

My understandings of diplomacy today

Looking back to my first impression of Diplomacy it gives a different view of your understand of diplomacy. Diplomacy has embraced different styles of diplomacy form the European style, the American revolutionary style and the third world styles which gives the great importance were and how is the diplomacy, with new factors involved. Form traditional diplomacy that attributes his negotiations, protocols and secrecy to a more modern diplomacy open so to speak diplomacy which involve tackling more now a days issues, such as security, military controls and environmental. The changes varied from states as no longer the main actors, more participation from international organisations and the non-actors engagements helped to change the nature of the diplomacy. The new development of diplomacy brings the public diplomacy, the Internet, World Wide Web all are involved in process of diplomacy. Nevertheless diplomacy is involvement that links countries into low politics in order for the self benefit of their own countries and exercises the culture and policies to a neighbour country it also exercise the negotiations that involve with abroad embassies, diplomats meetings, summitry, trade and bilateral. Today with more involvement with non-actors and non organisations (NGOs) involvements helps to expand the diplomacy agenda to tackle poverty and developments from developing countries. Diplomacy is a good method for forming alliances with countries in order to help the development of a particular governments or country , the public diplomacy as well cultural collaborations, the creations of embassies especial from third world countries, the in or out of people around the world it all contribute for the diplomacy to be more efficient and right because is still long way and still lots of issues that many ambassadors should tackle(health, poverty ,stopping the hard power usage) we just have to wait and see is ,it is the beginner of things that is what I understand what diplomacy is.

Changes in my way of understanding "New Diplomacy"

During those few months of studying the "new diplomacy" my view on the topic did not change too much. My first idea about what is new in diplomacy was creating new ways of creating and mainaining relations between states. The process of globalization made it easier to communicate and commute, technological development allowed politicians to attend conferences virtually, via telephone or videocameras. What was not surprising for me as well was the change within the international relation's system, specifically that "states were no longer the only actors involved" (Baylis and Smith 2005:390). Numbers speak for themselves: 1909 - 176 NGOs, 1954 - 1255 NGOs, 2007 - 27723 NGOs ( Kegley 2009:190). NGOs play a very important part in negotiations, they are able to influence states and other NGOs. What is more, after the period of Cold War and bilateral world, there came a time for more participants to take part in diplomacy processes. That is why the phenomenon of multilateral diplomacy was a thing that must have occured in order to restore balance in the world. Although I might have surmised what the "new" diplomacy is about, but it would not be so clear without attending this module, which gave me a wider look at the diplomacy.

Sources:
Kegley, Ch (2009) World Politics. Trend and Transformation, Cengage
Baylis, J and Smith, S (2005) The Globalization of the World Politics. An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford University Press

My understanding of diplomacy today

Looking back at what I had written at the beginning of this module regarding what I considered that diplomacy was, I have now discovered that I had a very narrow-minded view of the subject. For me it was about the relationships and communications between states, and how to improve these by having embassies. My understanding was also that it was mainly bilateral and concerning high politics, and that secrecy was more common than not. I did not realize the amount of issues that diplomacy actually covers; not only security and crisis management, but also the environment, trade, development, etc. I have learned more about the history of diplomacy and the evolution towards new ways of conducting it, as well as about the importance of public diplomacy in today’s international arena. Globalization, new technologies and more media coverage have all contributed to this change in how diplomacy is practiced. I still believe that there is some “old” diplomacy being used in certain situations; however it would be difficult to solve today’s main issues without the multilateral communications and negotiations. The participation of the NGOs in diplomatic processes has also made me realize that it is not only government officials that can be involved in diplomatic negotiations nowadays, which is a positive thing as it enables important subjects to be put high on the agenda, which they otherwise probably wouldn’t have been. My knowledge of this subject has certainly improved as I know understand how broad it actually is.

My understanding of diplomacy today.

My understanding of diplomacy today.



I would not say that, my understanding of diplomacy or my opinions about the role of diplomacy have changed much. I still do think – as I did when I wrote a short paper at the beginning of the term – that the role of diplomacy in its broad sense, is to negotiate; construct alliances, treaties and agreements and through those to maintain interactions among states and more importantly through the art of conducting international relations build up inter-state relationships and maintain the peace by political instruments.
But I must (gladly) admit that, my knowledge broadened up immensely, it is much deeper and complex after the completing the New Diplomacy module. My comprehension and intellectual grasp of the subject of diplomacy is indisputably enriched and improved. Thanks to the New Diplomacy module, I have gained awareness of many different categories and disciplines of diplomacy, which I have not been aware of before. I was enlightened by the module on the subject-matter of the origins and evolution of diplomacy, theoretical aspect of the discipline and patterns of diplomacy in a globalised world.

How has my opinion about the role of diplomacy in world politics changed since the start of the module?

My opinion about the role of diplomacy in world politics has changed completely. First of all, I would never say that we can date the origin of diplomacy so far. Second of all, I am impressed by the power of public diplomacy in world politics, as well as how strong the role diplomacy itself possesses in the international arena. Thanks to the New Diplomacy module, I released how important the roles of embassies and ambassadors are, and how full of secrecy the diplomatic world is. My knowledge of this subject has developed widely. I really learned many new and very interesting things. 

My (New) Insights of the New Diplomacy

I would argue that my opinions about the role of diplomacy in world politics have changed mainly due to one reason. I have during these month come to understand what diplomacy in fact is. In the first lecture we had to write our thoughts and understandings of firstly the definition of diplomacy, secondly the traits of “New” diplomacy, and conclusively what we hope to gain from this module. Looking back, I can now see that my initial understanding of diplomacy was rather conventional. I perceived the definition of diplomacy as: the rules and norms of conduct that establishes good relations with foreign states in order to prevent conflict. Being quite a bit too state centric when it came to the definition of diplomacy, I understood the concept of new diplomacy fairly better (I must admit), where new diplomacy was for me: less elitist e.g. making deals behind closed doors and instead more open and “inclusive” (rather abstract, I know). Conclusively I wished: to gain a better understanding of the changes of the diplomatic nature, and also an insight of what diplomacy is in our contemporary time.

So, have I reached what I aspired? I would argue yes. During these months I have come to learn that diplomacy is many-sided, there are many subcategories within the diplomatic practice which all fulfil different requirements. I have come to understand how diplomacy traditionally was conducted. I have also come to learn how diplomacy has adapted to our worlds changing nature, and how this practice has maintained even though many have claimed a decline of its importance. My knowledge of this subject has developed beyond the traditional (Berridge inspired) rather narrow definition of what diplomacy proper is. Instead, I (and I guess am not alone) have come to realise that diplomacy nowadays has evolved into a practice which is compounded out of various actors, and not as I (rather mistakenly) implied in the beginning of this module, solely state officials.

The importance of Multilateral Diplomacy

‘Multilateral diplomacy owed its growing popularity to the fact that conferences in the European States-system were essentially conferences of Great powers’ (Berridge, 2010, 144).
Multilateral diplomacy or conferences is a phenomenon of the 20th century.
According to the Foreign Policy Centre (FPC), governments can no longer afford to ignore the value of multilateral diplomacy as a strategic tool for solving problems.
Therefore multilateral diplomacy address the following issues: human rights, humanitarian assistance, labour rights, national and transnational environmental issues, fair trade and in all of these cases, national sovereignty is challenge.
But today, the increase member of richer nations from G8 to G20 shows how multilateral diplomacy is important on raising important issues like the world financial crisis which in 2008/2009 affect lesser developed nations.
Foe example the EU plays a structurally driven great power role in the UNFF (The EU in International Forestry Negotiations) and has a common trade policy (The Common Commercial Policy) and is unanimously viewed as a great power in trade diplomacy. (Elgstrom, 2007, 451).

Innovation of the "new" diplomacy

The end of the Cold War, is argued, is the time of the history where the term globalization began to be widely used. As we all know, this is the time of triumph of liberal democracy and of course, democratic values such as freedom of expression, self determination, etc..Furthermore, the increasing interconnectedness between states led to the globalization of politics, markets and issues of any type. In this sense, the world saw the emergence of wide range of human activities, which are not consistent of geographical location, and most important of all, with government permission or regulations. Few argued, that much of this activities has had a little political or diplomatic significance, but most agreed that this non-state actors somehow weakened government authority in a general way, but mainly the traditional state to state diplomatic activity. As a result, non-governmental organisation have adopted much higher activities, taking oppositionist approach to a specific government decisions, especially in humanitarian and human rights entity. This on the other hand, has led to the believe that there has been a revolution of the traditional government to government diplomacy and particularly in recent years, diplomatic representation is also widely given to non-governmental actors. Furthermore, management of global issues increasingly involve new actors beyond the state. It is arguable, International treaties an organizations, such as WTO, were believed to be too centred on their interest of capitalist enterprises. Therefore, in attempt to counterbalance this trend, NGO’s have been developed to emphasise humanitarian issues, sustainable aid and development. NGO’s, such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Oxfam, Global 2000, Save the Children and many, many more have really managed not only to raise an awareness about certain issues, but has provided much needed help towards tackling the issues.

Despite the fact that NGO’s have been heavily criticized of being politically orientated and serving a particular state’s interests, they still remain important players in the diplomatic activities as they are aiming to achieve what governments are not capable of dealing with. Or perhaps, this is what we might call a soft power....

The new diplomatic arena

With the emergence of the new diplomacy, the international negotiation arena augmented the number of seats and recitals to play. We have heard human rights issues, humanitarian aids, transboundary environmental issues, free trade, which involves an increase of the actors on the said above arena.
While the “old diplomacy” respected the state boundaries, the frontiers in the “new diplomacy” are transparent, now the curtains behind the actors on the scene are available for the spectators. The globalized arena permits the spreading of knowledge, information, new technologies including weapons; air pollution, impoverished biodiversity, water pollution etc. The occurrence of these positive and negative globalizational facts necessitated the creation of international rules governing above the states and because of the recklessness of the negotiators to operate these symptoms of globalization it was made the appearance of non-state actors speaking together with the global citizens, thus involving them on the negotiating international arena.
A recent example is my involvement as a citizen of Europe (organized by Greenpeace) in signing a European petition which aims to obtain 1 million of signatures for a moratorium on all European Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) approvals until the reforms required by the member states have not been completed by the Commission. I am playing a role on the arena, a minuscule role, but gathered together with the other participants we are speaking as negotiators. This invention incorporated in the “new diplomacy” is giving a chance for the better and for the worse, but the increase of the players strengthens the successful outcomes of the negotiations.

Aspects of the New Diplomacy

What is observable in the world diplomacy is a change in terms of the dimension of diplomacy. It is not only diplomacy between two countries, but there are more actors involved. The amount of conferences attended by more than two or three states increased; as a result multilateral diplomacy occurred and although it is not completely new, it is believed to be “a twentieth-century phenomenon” (Berridge 2010:143). What is important to notice, is that some of those multilateral conferences have become permanent. Moreover, it is strictly connected with the emergence of new actors on the international relations' scene. Those new actors, like, e.g. NGOs “influence inter-state behaviour to achieve their own objectives” (Baylis&Smith 2005:391) Their activity is remarkably visible if we look at the environmental issues and conferences that are taking place. Since United Nations Conference on Human Environment, held in Stockholm in 1972, NGO involvement in international decision-making processes related to the environment and sustainable development has escalated. If we would like to compare, representatives of more than 250 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) attended the Stockholm Conference, whilst more than 1,400 NGOs were accredited to the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro (Betsill 2008:1). Another important aspect in terms of “new diplomacy” is using technological development (telephones or video-conferences) in order to communicate. Although “telephone diplomacy has serious drawbacks” non other mean of communication “has been greater than that on the telephone” (Berridge 2010:193). As an example we can take reaction of the worlds' leaders on the death of Polish President, Lech Kaczyński:

Obama calls Polish Prime Minister after crash http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9025935

The most important aspect of "new" diplomacy

Looking at the new aspects that are included in “new” diplomacy, I would have to say that the most important one has to be the emergence of non-state actors in diplomatic processes. Public diplomacy appears to be, in many ways, propaganda, but with a new name. NGOs mostly work on issues multilaterally, so multilateral diplomacy goes hand in hand with the fact the NGOs are more influential in international relations today. This is just another evolution of diplomacy, as the world changes throughout time, diplomacy has to follow. One may argue that, because of NGOs involvement in diplomatic processes, this might threaten the power of the state, as diplomats traditionally have been government officials. But due to the NGOs growing popularity and ability to push issues on the agenda and be heard, states have been “forced” to include them. This does not necessarily threaten the state, but gives the state a new partner to communicate and negotiate with. That I think is important, that states and NGOs work together, as they have different abilities and approaches. Also, they usually have different interests; governments tend to be driven by national interests, while NGOs tend to be driven by a cause that they are fighting for. The most important thing the NGOs do, in my opinion, is that they are able to mobilize public support for important issues that otherwise may not have been high up on the agenda. There are many examples of this, but a very good one is the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. If it hadn’t been for a collective effort by different NGO’s pushing this campaign, there probably would not have been much achieved on this issue. Their campaign eventually led to the treaty to ban landmines in 1997 in Ottawa, and as of 20th March 2006, 154 countries have signed up to the treaty.
http://www.handicap-international.org.uk/page_391.php
Interestingly though, the United States have chosen not to sign it…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1SU5LGj6_E

THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE NEW DIPLOMACY

The traditional diplomacy was more dis tint in ancient Greece because of the communication process with modern states rather than rather that any form of organisations like church at the time
As it grew politically states found them more connected to contribute.
One of the important aspects are public diplomacy which is describing as new factor of the diplomacy even named as propaganda as many diplomats are very uneasy about the term, public diplomacy brought the soft power to negotiate with different foreign states and non-actors states and Resident embassies across the world which makes the value of the consular services important due to increase flow of people across frontiers.(Feilleux, J.pg55)

Other important aspect states were not longer the only actors involved they are engaging with international actors and non-governmental private or groups’ members such as NGOs and MNCs.
The diplomacy work is in done in vaster scale; diplomats found themselves dealing with large amount of issues that in traditional diplomacy was rare. The today’s problems that various from environmental, population, military security, ideology and territorial rivalry and human rights. The NGOs and Non-states actors play an important role in address these issues to governments. There is a fine line between domestic and international affairs and today is becoming more difficult to separate both.
Although NGOs limitation are wide not having the benefits that diplomacy offers such as special immunities they still maintain as important in order to affect the course of the diplomacy. (Berridge,G .pg253)

Of course we can encounter many aspects from technologies and innovations, transformations the growth of the multi lateral diplomacy but is not New or Old diplomacy is basically Mature diplomacy that deals with different aspects of today like common interest, preventing violence, trying collaborate with developed countries in more diplomatic way and stopping conflicts by forming alliance through diplomacy. (Berridge, G ,pg 255)

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy

The new diplomacy is characterised mostly by new actors that operate on the international level, for instance, different kinds of NGOs (Green Peace, Oxfam etc.) but also multinational corporations. Diplomacy is not any more concentrated in hands of a few leaders but also in hands of ordinary citizens (1). Nowadays, we live in a freedom that allows us to become influential and it is the main reason, why there are so many NGOs in the world. Realists and pluralists would argue how influential those groups are, but the fact is that they operate on the international level and try to push forward their causes and try to influence governments. Realists would also argue that it is still states that have to sign new treaties or to change laws but NGOs have the role to influence the discussion that will later end up in signing a new treaty. NGOs have developed sophisticated and effective techniques, for example, Amnesty International has policies that members can lead campaigns only in deferent countries than their country of origin but it has also a security reason(2). NGOs are also influential, because they are often focus only on one issue and they have experts that work only on that issue, but states must deal with multiple issues. NGOs cooperate with other NGOs for the reason to become more influential or better reach their aims, for instance, European NGOs work through African NGOs in helping poor people or people affected by war.
The new diplomacy has to deal with very different issues which the old diplomacy did not deal with, for instance, international terrorism, nuclear weapons, global warming, human rights and many others and it demands a new kind of diplomacy (3).


(1) Pachios, Harold C. (2002) . The new diplomacy
(2) www.amnesty.org.uk
(3)Willian R. Moomaw, The New Diplomacy, http://fletcher.tufts.edu/ierp/pdfs/NewDiplomacy.2.pdf

The important aspects and the "New", in New Diplomacy

During these weeks we have followed the evolvement of diplomacy from its traditional form to the current practice of diplomacy, which has come to be regarded the “New Diplomacy”. Even though the practice and conduct of this new diplomacy is not always truly new, and does not in fact represent a complete alteration from its traditional form, many improvements and modifications can be detected. What I would argue is the foremost important improvement of the new diplomacy is the incorporation of the long neglected “great mass”. While it still cannot be argued that the public is truly included in the political sphere, the new diplomacy has as a minimum demonstrated that the public has developed into a variable included in the diplomatic equation. In the age of information and wide-spread technological communication means, the role of the public has turned greatly significant, much because the public itself has become a lot more aware and involved with the different (political, environmental, societal etc.) issues of the world. The new diplomacy demonstrates how traditional practices much often need to change, especially in our time of globalization. These changes can be detected in the new diplomatic practice in for instance its (new founded) interest in collaborating with associational life such as NGOs, INGOs, CBOs etc., or even incorporating these non-state actors in the diplomatic sphere. The emphasis on public diplomacy, that is inspiring and being inspired by the (often foreign, but also domestic) public further demonstrates the turn in diplomacy towards a more “soft power” (Nye 2004) inspired, public oriented conduct. These attributes were traditionally neglected in the sphere of diplomacy and they exemplify what the “new” in new diplomacy indicates. On these grounds, I would argue that the new, and most modify changes with diplomacy is that the actors, and receivers of diplomacy and diplomatic conduct is no longer solely delimited to the state, or the elitists state actors. On that note, contemporary diplomacy could be, in my opinion, considered “new and improved”.

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy

In my opinion, the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is the emergence of new actors, non-state actors such as NGOs, in world affairs.

The world system used to be a “nation-state” one, however nowadays different actors are involved in world politics (Leguey Feilleux, 2009:101), such as international organizations, nongovernmental organizations and multinational corporations. The new diplomacy is a multilateral diplomacy, where more than just two states are involved in negotiations.

I will focus on NGOs, which are components of civil society. They are active in open society, and what is important is that they cover a broad spectrum of human activity. Some of them do not even have anything to do with the political process. However, they are involved in negotiations, and moreover, they can create pressure in decision-making (Leguey Feilleux, 2009: 104).These actors play different roles and take care of different parts of our lives. Greenpeace, for example, is a non-governmental environmental organization, whose goal is to ensure the ability of the earth to nurture life in all its diversity. This is very important for the human being, especially nowadays, with issues like global warming, deforestation, and dangerous natural disasters. As well, they are involved in peace movements and anti-nuclear protests (http://www.greenpeace.org/international) [accessed: 12.04.2010].

 

Additionally, the roles of the media and public opinion, as well as public diplomacy, are very important aspects in new diplomacy. These actors are allowed to put pressure in the decision-making process as well.

As I have written in my blog before, public diplomacy is very important in today’s world politics, and has an impact on decision-making. For example, we can see how foreign views of the United States changed after the US decided to go to war with Iraq in 2003.  The influence of public opinion changed the U.S’ decision-making later on.  

 

As I wrote above, in my opinion the most important aspects of the new diplomacy are the interference of the new non-state actors as well as the power of media and public opinion, through which the diplomacy agenda has become much richer.

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy…

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy… There are a few aspects of the new diplomacy which differentiate the new diplomacy from the traditional diplomacy and certainly it is hard to pick up or concentrate just on one of them. Those are - just briefly – multilateral diplomacy; public diplomacy; inclusion of “low politics” and the individuals into diplomacy; special envoys; and influences of the globalization. However this blog would argue that the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is an emergence of NGOs, non-state actors and corporations, which influence the diplomacy and can reach beyond the national borders. ‘International organizations, both inter-governmental and non-governmental, have become significant diplomatic actors. With at least rudimentary diplomatic machinery, they can communicate their interests and deploy their resources to influence the outcome of negotiations.’ (Baylis&Smith (2006) The Globalization of World Politics) This blog would argue that there is no evidence of the involvement of the NGOs and other mentioned actors in or by the traditional “the old diplomacy” and they did not play any significant role as influential actors over the changes in diplomacy within the traditional framework of “the old diplomacy”. This blog would claim that, the significant appearance, involvement of the NGOs and increase of their influence onto diplomacy is evident since the end of the Cold War and by deepening of the globalization. ‘We contend that the increased participation of NGOs in the political process reflects broader changes in the nature of diplomacy in world politics.’ (Betsill&Corell (2008) NGO Diplomacy) NGOs raising influence within diplomacy is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy and certainly the unprecedented role of NGOs and their strong partnership with like-minded governments was one of the most important aspects.

Public Diplomacy

It is a great “green” coincidence this week marked with the USA- Russia new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) on nuclear arsenal and the Earth Day on the 27th April when one hour without lights is dedicated to the planet for less carbon dioxide (CO₂). I am writing my blog on Public Diplomacy on a green energy light at the same time as writing and searching for news on the laptop- two inventions but of different generations.


Picture available at at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2009/jul/06/russia-obama-administration?picture=349891252


I believe that with this action I will make the Earth with small amounts reduced CO₂ emissions as well as my belief is the same regarding the new START Treaty between Russia and USA. The information technologies are playing a huge role in the world (e.g. my belief that I will decrease CO₂ with turning off the lights).
As CSIS expose on their website: “The intent of public diplomacy is to communicate with the people, not the governments, of foreign countries.”

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/071106_csissmartpowerreport.pdf

“A smarter public diplomacy is one that shows respect toward other countries and a willingness to understand local needs and local issues.” (John Zogby-ibid)

This statement is very well illustrated in the Barack Obama speech on nuclear Treaty: “...I stated America’s intention to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons...”, “...when the US and Russia can cooperate effectively, it advances the mutual interests of our two nations, and the security and prosperity of the wider world.”

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/03/2010326153215998861.html

In the high politics, this Treaty is promoting a greater security, for the “global” citizens it is given credence to promote less funds for the military and respectively more funds for development in general in the other fields including environment and poverty. But how this news reached my ears? To understand more, I visited a Russian website where it was written: “MOSCOW -- for the past two days the city’s downtown language was English. If you were grabbing a coffee or dining with friends, local waiters rarely bothered to switch to Russian, even with Russians. Obama brought an unprecedented 600 advisors, media, and assistants with him.”

http://www.russiablog.org/2009/07/obama_in_moscow_reset_yuri_mamchur.php

It is possible not to be true, however this is the power of the media, but the important fact is that public diplomacy played its role successfully not only making gratified the world governments, but the non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, citizens etc, too.

Public diplomacy needed in contemporary world politics

Public diplomacy seeks to promote a country’s national interests through understanding, informing and influencing foreign publics. This can be done through different means, such as; government sponsored programmes to influence public opinion in other states, cultural exchanges, internet, television etc. This is different to traditional diplomacy as a government will deal with non-state actors and directly with the public.

The US War against al Qaeda, and terrorism, most clearly illustrates the need for public diplomacy. Having been in Afghanistan for 8 years with no real sign of victory, the approach now being used is about winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. This is the very definition of public diplomacy as they are trying in a very real sense to engage with Afghan public.

The United States cannot defeat al-Qaeda by military strength alone. It must also get to grips with the root causes of radicalisation. How can this best be accomplished? What strategy should the United States adopt for what is often called the "war of ideas" against radical Islam?

There has been a realisation that the protection of the Afghan people must be a priority when it comes to tactics in the Afghan conflict. The following links illustrate this point:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=achpmC.2DSpo

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/world/asia/23policy.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/02/23/mcchrystal-apologizes-afghans-civilian-deaths/

The Obama administration has improved on the United States’ approach to the war of ideas, compared to the Bush administration. This has been done by an attempt to use diplomacy and soft power, rather than hard power and “you are either with us or against us” tactics.

The strategy of empowering the Afghan people to provide their own security has been as much a psychological weapon as a physical one. If you want a foreign public’s support and cooperation, you need their trust, respect and a mutual understanding of values.

Public Diplomacy, Propaganda or Soft Power?

According to Berridge, Public Diplomacy is simply the current name of white propaganda contrary to Cull who sees it as an invitation to influence as many people as possible from foreign countries as it seeks to achieve over them (Berridge, 2010, pp 179-182).
Mark Dillen argues in his article ‘’US Public Diplomacy, Back to the Future’’(11.03.2010) on Public Diplomacy website that the State Department is strategically trying to revive US Information Agency (USAI) policy ten years after its closure by communicating and influencing foreign publics. Therefore key diplomatic positions will be upgraded and other strategic public positions ceded to the Pentagon in the past will be reclaimed. If successful this will definitely reduce the influence and the authority of US embassies abroad. For example there is a new plan underway in Pakistan called the ’’Pakistan Plan’’ which has four objectives: increase the media audience, fight against terrorist propaganda, increase communication network and have a direct contact with the local population by increasing positive American presence on the ground in Pakistan with more non-official contacts between Pakistanis and Americans in Pakistan. Thus Secretary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan in October 2009 was planned according to the set objectives. (http://publicdiplomacy.foreignpolicyblogs.com) [accessed 26.03.10].
This new strategy in Pakistan and the change of tone of American Foreign Policy shows the US is adopting to another form of Public Diplomacy: Soft Power by both President Clinton and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton according to Kim Ghattas’s article on BBC News, Washington posted on the 18 October 2009. For Ghattas, Hillary Clinton feels her schedule with ‘’Soft’’ events during which she meets students, women activists or human rights advocates contrary to her predecessor Condoleezza Rice who conducted her foreign policy in a more rigid academic style, sticking mostly to official meeting during short trip that were run with military precision. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/831293.stm) [accessed 26.03.10]

Public Diplomacy, Propaganda or Soft Power?

Once upon a time when even public diplomacy is useless

Since the end of the Cold War, American public diplomacy has seemed to be in its decline as the number of American exchange students has been very low and the end of organisations as USIA. But 9/11 gave a new strong motivation for a new public diplomacy and many voices in the USA started calling for a renewal of USIA and a better engagement in public diplomacy. But is it really public diplomacy that failed?
Lets look first at a simple statement given by a director of USIA in 1963 “To be persuasive, we must be believable, to be believable, we must be credible, to be credible, we must be truthful, it is as simple as that”. After 9/11, the USA lost its truthfulness that people around the world had in the USA. The fake reasons behind the invasion of Iraq and dubious event of 9/11, were just some of the reasons, for which people around the world lost its trust in the USA. Over thousand of Architects and engineers signed a petition for a new and proper investigation of 9/11 in February 2010 (1). There are thousands of American websites and books showing many mistakes in official report on 9/11 and many of them asserting that 9/11 was a “false flag operation” carried out by the USA government or that invasion of Iraq was just about oil or about a hidden agenda for a world government. People asserting those issues against the USA government are, among others, many doctors, engineers, judges, politicians and many other scholars. There is a huge number of movies exposing the frauds carried out by the US government as for instance “”Fall of the Republic” that has been already seen by 1 500 000 people on youtube and websites as for instance infowars.com that are visited by about hundred thousand people every day. Unless the USA government refutes all the accusations, there is no chance to succeed in public diplomacy and persuade people that the USA helps people around the world and protects only its country against terrorists. It is also interesting that in this case, the USA government must also fight own citizens against contrary public diplomacy

(1) http://www.ae911truth.org/

Public Diplomacy

Public diplomacy cannot be regarded just as PR or propaganda. As for the US it is a very good way to reconstruct and to gain leverage in the world.

The role of USA in the world was not only about its military power - it was goin along with culture and values. We all know brands such as McDonalds, KFC, Nike Inc.; we celebrate Halloween and Valentione's Day. The influence the United States has on the rest of the world is huge. American politicians regard Public Diplomacy as integral for Foreign Politics. The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs is responsible for this area of politics.

"The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs leads America's public diplomacy outreach, which includes communications with international audiences, cultural programming, academic grants, educational exchanges, international visitor programs, and U.S. Government efforts to confront ideological support for terrorism. The Under Secretary oversees the bureaus of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Public Affairs and International Information Programs, and participates in foreign policy development." ( http://www.state.gov/r/ )

Currently, the Under Secretary position is held by Judith McHale, since May, 2009. She was talking about the Public Diplomacy and how it is connected with national security, in June, 2009 in Washington. I find this very useful in order to understand why is Public Diplomacy so important. She emphasises the role of technological development in spreading information all over the world. The important point she makes, is that "traditional G2G diplomacy is not enough". There are two different levels of public diplomacy mentioned: communication and engagement.

Public diplomacy in contemporary world politics.

Kind of negative public Diplomacy :(

Public Diplomacy in contrast to “traditional” diplomacy is about communication with citizens. Public Diplomacy includes dialogue between individuals and various institutions including non-governmental as is often referred to as a “two-way street” for credentials of the dialogue.

‘The basic premise of public diplomacy is that by engaging in a country’s political and social debates, you can create the intellectual and political climate in which your specific policies can flourish.’ (Riordan, S. (2004) The New Diplomacy: 122) Those engagements can be cultural and educational programs, seminars engaged to certain theme, TV documentaries, interviews and articles. Public diplomacy aims to create a positive image of the advocate country within the target community or country; however this is not always in positive manner, but could be with the aim to create a negative image as well. This blog would argue that there is a fine line between public policy and targeted propaganda and is often somehow fused together.


There is an interesting video showing how Israel is using new technologies to improve the image of the Israel. Technologies that Israeli diplomats are using are i.e. Twitter, Facebook or YouTube. It is interesting how by using the internet can help to change the perspective of the one country in the globalised, interconnected world with help of advanced technology and can reach the targeted group of people within seconds.
Please watch this video on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujYb0dCWVDc

This blog would argue that the most profound example of the public diplomacy in the use of public diplomacy in the time of Vietnam war, when Americans did realize the importance of the support of the Vietnamese citizens and more recently the same situations occurred in Iraq. There is interesting interview led by a Yemeni-born British television news reporter and interviewer Riz Khan on subject of the public diplomacy of the USA in Iraq. Watch at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fHn97YoQ14

PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

Public diplomacy is been considerate the transition between public information and public communication. It’s also known as one soft power that drives the abilities to involve with others countries.
It is basically the fruit of the public opinion that is telling or showing the (truth)that is not exercise the lying involvement as such as increasing the ingredients to the clean material to the opinion that is already set in, order words the public diplomacy is the for the best reputations and services of their the country interest. It is important product that diplomats should not being taken under valued it is not a simple technique it should be acknowledged as part of the world of politics that is bringing the developments into new level of negotiations, collaborations and engaging with domestic policies of others countries ,linking up with NGOs in order to chance the public opinion. (Melissen, J.pg 3,4)
For examples in HillaryClinton seeks deepen Indian ties://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8157013.stm

Of course is better structure is needed in cases in order for the public diplomacy be successful especial when dealing with NGOs, of their complex agenda. It is important the reputation of the country when dealing with international affairs. It should be based on trust and values. You do not impose your values and policies and let the country deal with it. It won’t work. If public diplomacy is based on central to relations between developed and underdeveloped countries a must careful approach should be apply to the post-modern countries. If input a traditional approach otherwise will result only in crisis management, policing/military interventions. The west is not always right. Long procedures from cultural and political values have to be implemented to promote civic societies. Values are embedded with concrete practises not always for politically contents. For example from Education require training for teacher and administrators promote exchanges of students’ programmes from developed states with the west. Another r example is with Scandinavian government are more trusted when comes with NGOs because of their long involvement for support human rights . for exempleAfricom: America's Public Diplomacy and Military Strategy in Africa http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/projects/africom(Riordan, S. pg122, 123)

Recent event and development which illustrates the importance and otherwise of public diplomacy in contemporary world politics.

The term public diplomacy in international relations describes a conduct of foreign policy by engagement with foreign publics. Originally, it was a euphemism of purportedly truthful propaganda.

We can see the changes of the public diplomacy in the American example. For example, foreign views of United States changed after the US decided to go to war with Iraq in 2003.

Before the issue of the Iraq war, the foreign views of the United States were very favorable. Even during 1999-2000, public attitudes toward the United States were positive in much of Europe and the Muslim world. However, the Americans’ attack on Iraq in 2003, caused a growth of very negative foreign views of the USA, especially in the Arab and Muslim worlds. There were many protests against the Iraq War around the world, as well as in United States itself. The attached videos demonstrate this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fjt7lHCICkw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKzLEjzvtfM&feature=related

By 2007, public around the world saw the United States as a threat to their countries. It can be said that in the time after 9/11, during the Bush administration, the American public diplomacy failed. The American image abroad was very bad and the reason for this was the bad public diplomacy, which in other words is called ‘strategic communication’. At this time the change was needed.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090216/tirman

The change and the public diplomacy development came together with Barack Obama’s election. As a candidate during the elections, Senator Obama displayed an important component of public diplomacy; he created meaningful relationships among targeted public groups using the Internet and other people-to-people platforms. He promoted his anti-war stance. Furthermore, Obama did not support the Iraq war and wanted to take some actions to solve this problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

Obama wanted to help to improve the American image abroad. One of the important things he has done, is valued two-way communication and dialogue over confrontation and unidirectional edicts. These new ideas were welcomed by Americans as well as by other foreign publics.. Furthermore, Obama promotes non-violent resolutions to problems, with collaborations not confrontation, and negotiations.

Based on the example of the Iraq war, we can see the failure of American public diplomacy in world politics, and moreover its development, which came together with the Obama’s administration, which is still in process.

Bibliography:

- Dr. J. Gregory Payne- President Barack Obama: Advocate of Grassroots Public Diplomacy

accessed: http://www.tripodos.com/pdf/M04.pdf77.pdf

- Stephen Van Evera and Peter Krause: "Public Diplomacy: Ideas for the War of Ideas"

accessed: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19550/public_diplomacy.html

Public Diplomacy and Erasmus?

In a day and time when the role and the opinions of citizens, both domestic and foreign, have enhanced (many say through the spread of liberal-democracies and liberal-democratic ideas and values) it is understandable to comprehend why public diplomacy have become a important means to influence and affect both a country’s own population but mainly also foreign citizens views and thoughts. State actors, diplomats, independent NGO’s etc. have recognized the importance of influencing the population of a certain society. The influencing affect of public diplomacy has in turn contributed public diplomacy to become greatly interweaved with propaganda, where e.g. state actors of a society try to manipulate foreign citizens in order influence their ideas and thoughts. Although it can at times be hard to separate public diplomacy from propaganda, this paper argues that conducting public diplomacy is not always and de facto propaganda. Public diplomacy can be performed in various ways, for various means.

Helena K. Finn does in her The Case for Cultural Diplomacy describe the historical importance cultural diplomacy has had for the USA and their foreign relations. In her article it is explained how cultivating a better image of USA was carried out through improving the access of foreign publics to American institutions, American media and so on (Finn 2003:15-17). She also explains the importance of continuing cultural diplomacy by e.g. extending existing foreign exchange programs (Finn 2003:17).
Reading this, and thinking of this week’s blogging question I discovered that I myself am “a part” of what could be considered conducts of public/cultural diplomacy in contemporary time. Being an Erasmus student, which I am, can also be regarded as being a part of policies contributing to the interlinking of the European students, thus influencing and affecting better relations amongst the European countries and perhaps additionally influencing a unity amongst the European citizens as well. This example might seen a bit far-fetched, but I found this an interesting case of how public/cultural diplomacy goes beyond public speeches made by head of states and instead takes often various diverse forms.

Information of what Erasmus is (and also why you should take part of an Erasmus exchange semester) can be found at:

• http://www.britishcouncil.org/erasmus.htm
  
• http://esn.cs.teiath.gr/esn-satellite-2.3/node/60

Contemporary Relevance of Traditional Diplomacy (?)

It is not uncommon that current discourses on diplomacy often compare the modern ways of conducting diplomacy from a former more conservative connotation of the word. Crystallizing what is “old” and what is “new” this comparison have contributed to a polarized distinction between the “Traditional” from the “Contemporary” diplomacy, where the new diplomacy is seen as thoroughly different, greatly transformed and nevertheless improved.
Diplomacy and diplomatic activities have adjusted and adapted to the current time of internationalization and globalization of interests, technology and media, and diplomacy in contemporary time is more popular oriented and transparent then previously. This does however not indicate that new and old diplomacy is of completely different nature.
Traditional diplomacy which is often associated with bilateral agreements, secret negotiations, high politics and solely state actors might in a contemporary dominant liberal-democratic sense seem outdated and inaccurate. Instead are multilateral agreements, transparency and including actors as INGO’s and NGO’s into the diplomatic sphere what has come to be the preferable, and accurate way of conducting diplomacy. It can be determined that the attitude towards what diplomacy is and ought to be, has changed. But does this entail a total transformation of the diplomatic sphere and activity? And in that case, is what we know as Old diplomacy just a good reminder of how backwards and surreptitious the former style of diplomacy was?

Even though transformations have been made I would not argue that these have brought about a polarized distinction between old and new diplomacy. There have been changes within the field of diplomacy, but not enough changes so a clear-cut distinction could be made. Therefore is arguing for the contemporary value of old diplomacy rather ambiguous, when old diplomacy is still vital in its newer form.
Modifications have been made, and needed to be made in my opinion. It is however not guaranteed that these modifications, known as new diplomacy, are intrinsic successful. For instance, the multilateral agreements and meetings which have come to signify new diplomacy are in theory ideal and equitable ways of negotiating and compromising policies. In practise however these agreements are often difficult to reach.
The United Nation’s Copenhagen climate change conference serves as a good example of how great amount of effort, attention and aspirations can result in nothing.
Instead of stressing a distinction of what is old and what is new diplomacy I believe attention should be given to how diplomacy has improved and enhanced. As the COP-15 conference demonstrates, new does not always imply improved.

Uncut old diplomacy?

The first diplomatic relations discovered between the King of Ebla and the King of Amazi in which is expressed a feeling of equality between them is still relevant today. After treaties and conventions expressing “egalitarianism” the states are both conflicting (not always militarily) and hand shaking. Yes, saying hand shaking by its meaning of a gesture of peace without holding weapons in the hands.
One picture took my attention- the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and the Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari shaking hands (picture available at http://www.life.com/image/78510258)




To expand my view I will explore the honesty in the old diplomacy and the honesty in the modern diplomacy.
Whilst the French were the first to “invent” the honest diplomacy, with what eyes can we look at this picture? Is this hand shaking honest? What does it mean “honest” today or did our generation transform the honesty through the information communications technology?
I would rather say no and I will give a couple of examples.



Picture available at http://thelibertytree.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/whats-in-a-handshake-or-presidents-meet-with-bad-people/


In this picture US President Nixon and Mao Zedong who are shaking hands despite the existing tensions between them, taking as an instance the so-called “ping-pong diplomacy” in brief coming from the denial by China to Americans of receiving visas, secondly the ideological differences between Communist China and Democratic and Capitalist America.


Picture available at http://thelibertytree.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/whats-in-a-handshake-or-presidents-meet-with-bad-people/

The picture above is showing the US President Gerald Ford with Brezhnev during the Cold War détente policy where they put further life to the SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty).
Following, it is the picture of Ronald Reagan with Gorbachev two years before the end of the Cold War, where they signed the INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces).



Picture available at http://thelibertytree.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/whats-in-a-handshake-or-presidents-meet-with-bad-people/


Finally, coming as the cherry on the top of the cake, it is a picture of the US President George W. Bush with the self-proclaimed Pakistani President Musharraf- a dictator (as some countries see him) and republican democratic President Bush (also seen as dictator in the sense of “someone who tells other people what they should do, in a way that seems unreasonable” in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).


Picture available at http://thelibertytree.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/whats-in-a-handshake-or-presidents-meet-with-bad-people/

As a deduction from these pictures and the message from them I could only say that either the meaning of sincere hand shaking is gone or the modern public diplomacy is not so “public”.
I would rather defend the second, because even with the development of mass media the principle of old diplomacy- secrecy- stays outside the scope of the media. I would even state that that development of the technologies benefits the secrecy of the diplomatic relations using them to make diplomacy untraceable or encoded.
Summarising, if I have to defend the “honesty” of the hand shake, I have to cut out only the shaking hands from the pictures and say that this is the old diplomacy still relevant today and in doing this supporting the French honest diplomacy nowadays.
If choose to defend the modern diplomacy I have again to cut out the shaking hands, but now take this part away and leave only the public figures.
I would argue that the old diplomacy is relevant today and as evidence I will give the intact pictures. That is why I leave them uncut for future references on old diplomacy.

New version of 'old' diplomacy

As societies evolve so does the politics and the way diplomacy is conducted.
But the key feature of diplomacy remains exactly the same throughout the history, namely the management of relation between states. Certainly modern is a lot more complex compared to the old, high political issues concerned diplomacy. But is inevitable to argue the current relevance of the old diplomacy is still very much intact.
In the current era of rapid globalization, the technological revolution has become a tool towards greater success of the diplomatic process. And thanks to that, it proves mush easier for diplomats to exchange information via telephone, internet, and virtual conferences without the need of physically coming together. But this, on the other hand, rises the question whether the tools of globalization actually tend to undermine the role of the old diplomatic institutions such as embassies. Many would agree with this statement but diplomats themselves support the opposite view. His Excellency Mr. Per Augustsson, Deputy Chief of Mission in the embassy of Sweden, stated ‘if you want to negotiate with a state, you need to physically be based in the country itself, and have specific knowledge of the political and social life of this particular state’. He also underlined the changing nature of modern diplomat’s job description as they tend to get increasingly involved not only in dealing with foreign policy but also soft politic issues, such as trade, development and tourism.
Other important issue in the subject of diplomacy is the relation between ‘open’ and ‘secret’ way of conducting diplomacy. Although the ‘new’ diplomacy is widely associated with openness and transparency, many diplomatic activities are still often conducted in secret way and on bilateral ‘old’ diplomacy bases and they are mainly in regards of high political issues, such as state security matters. In some other aspects, such as environmental, trade and finance issues, multilateralism has increasingly developed conference agreement framework. In this sense is inevitable to mention the increasing role of NGOs.
Yet again, the question of how new is the ‘new’ diplomacy, still remains open.

Is Old Diplomacy Still Relevant?

It would be unreasonable to think that ‘old’ diplomacy has no contemporary relevance. However, this depends on the interpretation of ‘old’ and ‘new’ diplomacy and whether the differences are indeed profound as many argue. Nevertheless, the question must be asked, whether ‘new’ diplomacy can function and exist without ‘old’ diplomacy.
The basic principle of diplomacy is negotiations among nation states. Despite the modification in routines, procedures and settings, this basic principle is still in tact and key to diplomacy.
Technology has been a major factor in new diplomacy; furthermore, heads of states increasingly take on the role of diplomats by engaging themselves directly in negotiations with other states. Non-state actors are also relevant and play a part in ‘new’ diplomacy. Nevertheless, and despite new methods of conducting negotiations with other nation states, old diplomacy is still very much relevant and important when dealing, contacting and communicating with other states. The fact that resident embassies still exist and remain shows that old diplomacy is still very much relevant.
During this past decade when the world has seen an increase in the threat of terrorism and an increase in the awareness of climate change, old diplomacy has become ever more important because personal interaction can be much more tactile. When there are important common issues or factors to be dealt with the importance of personal visits by diplomats and their heads of state increases as much as the visits themselves. Personal interaction emphasises the importance of issues to be negotiated and shows respect to the other diplomats which is reciprocated when needed.
In this time of a global financial crisis and other threats to global stability, it is important that states conduct close relations with other states, as is the case of the USA and China. Obama’s visit to China was deemed very important and emphasised the importance of these two powerful states remaining allies.

China is not viewed as a trouble spot for the United States. But [Obama’s] administration, like its predecessor, has had difficulty grappling with a rising power that seems eager to avoid direct clashes with the United States but affects its interests in many areas, including currency policy, nuclear proliferation, climate change and military spending.
“Strategic reassurance rests on a core, if tacit, bargain,” Mr. Steinberg said. “Just as we and our allies must make clear that we are prepared to welcome China’s ‘arrival,’ ” he argued, the Chinese “must reassure the rest of the world that its development and growing global role will not come at the expense of security and well-being of others.”
The New York Times
‘China’s role as lender alters Obama’s visit.’
By HELENE COOPER, MICHAEL WINES and DAVID E. SANGER, Published: November 14, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/asia/15china.html

Is old diplomacy still relevant?

Today we talk about “new” and “modern” ways of conducting diplomacy, where all states and even non-state actors are welcomed to join in on the discussions. An example of this was the Copenhagen summit on climate change. Because of these open summits and the fact that they are there for us to watch, some may claim that this indeed is “new” diplomacy and the “old” one, which was behind closed doors and bilateral, does not occur anymore. When we visited the Swedish Embassy last week, Per Augustsson talked about this openness regarding the way in which Sweden conducts diplomacy, which he said was very openly, as the documents are not a secret. This I think is not something all countries do, especially not the big powers, such as the United States or China. If you are a superpower like the US (and alone as a superpower), I do not believe that being that open and honest is possible. This is due to the fact that national security is the main agenda, and you will probably not want to “reveal” everything that you have up your sleeve, because at the end of the day, a superpower with that much military power and influence over many parts of the world will have “enemies”.

Also, summits do not just happen, there are pre-negotiations leading up to the summit. These do not have to be multilateral or covered by the media for us to watch, and they indicate a country’s stance on whatever issue that will be on the agenda.

The last point I wanted to make is something that both Per Augustsson and Steven Curtis mentioned, and that is the importance of building diplomatic (and personal) relationships, as important decisions or agreements may be made on the lunch break rather than in the actual meeting or summit. That is another aspect that may considered as “old” and “closed” diplomacy that is relevant today.