How ‘big’ is the negotiation table

The new diplomacy provides an opportunity for every country to take a seat around the negotiation table. But what made that possible? There is a simple answer to that question and that is the technological revolution. Looking back about four millenniums back in the history we can easily notice that the ‘’messengers’’ had to really had a ‘strong legs’. Isn’t that the way hoe diplomacy was born? It doesn’t matter what methods were and are used, the main point is the fact that diplomacy has and is always needed for states to be able to co-exist.
Many argue that multilateralism is a core concept in the notion of new diplomacy. Relating that key element to foreign policy, we can visibly see that in some occasions bilateralism is very much present in current days. I will just remind you about the meeting of two very strong political figures- presidents Obama and Medvedev, which took place in Moscow on 1st of April 2009. The main topic of the meeting was the nuclear disarmament of the greatest nuclear powers- USA and Russia, eventually leading to commitment to slash stockpiles by about a third.
It seems that in regards of one of the major issues in global scale such as the nuclear proliferation, there are only two main seats around the negotiation table. And of course, this rises the question whether the ‘new’ diplomacy is a new phenomenon or is simply the evolution of the old one?!?

Changing nature of Diplomacy
Bartson argues that ‘’Diplomacy is concerned with the management of relations between states and between states and other actors’’. ( Bartson, 2006, 1). Therefore it could be argued that Diplomacy is about cooperation and communication between states and non state actors .
According to Harold Nicolson,s analysis, written in 1961 in Foreign Affairs on the theme ‘Diplomacy then and now’ is coloured especially by the impact of the Cold War... (Bartson, 2006, 4).
The impact of the cold war had obviously a great impact in the evolution of diplomacy because in my view, secret diplomacy was developed by the two superpowers: the United States and the Soviet Union.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is a strong decline in the decision making power of ambassadors at the expense of the direct involvement of the head of states of governments which is a huge change in the nature of diplomacy.
The Iraq inquiry is a useful example where the main focus is on former Prime Minister Blair as head of government and responsible for the Iraqi War but nothing much on Jack Straw as a formal Secretary of State, therefore absence of diplomatic concern.
Finally, the impact of new technology has a significance change in diplomacy.
Alex Ross, senior adviser for innovation to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained in an interview transcript recorded on July 29, 2009, how the white house is changing its approach to diplomacy with the advent of new technologies. He argues that there is a major shift in communication technology, changing engagement between government to people and people-to-people and more importantly social media which is very new and important tool used by Obama to win the presidential elections.
For more information on how to access Alec Ross interview transcript that I really found interesting please go to: www.bigthink.com/ideas/16040

The most significant change in the nature of diplomacy?

     According to Brian White, diplomacy is a process of communication between political entities, which has existed for thousands of years.  The first diplomatic document, which was discovered in the 1970’s, dates back to around 2500 BC.  The antiquity attributed to this demonstrates that diplomacy is not a new discipline.  However, as in every discipline, change occurs, and so diplomacy has changed.

     The first significant change in the nature of diplomacy is that it is more open to public scrutiny, by provisioning information to the public. This is unlike the traditional system, in which diplomacy was usually undertaken in secrecy.

     The second change is the structure of diplomacy, where states are not the only actors involved in diplomacy anymore. There are new actors on the international stage, such as international organizations. There are two types of international organizations: intergovernmental (with governments only as members) and non-governmental (with private individuals or groups as members). The increasing number of non-state actors has changed “the nature of the new diplomacy as a process of negotiations” (Baylis and Smith, 2005: 391). An example could be the establishment of an international organization like the League of Nations, which was established after the First World War to “act both as international forum for the peaceful settlement of disputes and as a deterrent against another world war…” (Baylis and Smith, 2005: 391).The new diplomacy is a much more open process than the old diplomacy.

     There is a significant change of governments in terms of regulating the lives of their citizens. Governments now are providing the security of their citizens as well as their social and economic well-being.

     One of the most important changes in agenda in the diplomacy was the avoidance of war, which became a priority of the new diplomacy.

     Furthermore, the new diplomacy is considering the new issues in international relations: the environment, technology and arms control. 

 

The most significant change in the nature of Diplomacy?

After searching in the Oxford English Dictionary, the meaning of “diplomat” and “ambassador” was the same “an important official who represents his or her government in a foreign country”.

From here I could deduce that the history of the Diplomacy even Before Christ did not change its basic meaning. If not replace the word “change” with “evolution”, I would state that the significant change in the nature of Diplomacy is the evolution of the human thinking.

On the first hand, the development of the media and communication technologies benefited for the establishment of the principle of open diplomacy. Furthermore the foundation of the human rights and liberties as treaties, conventions and even as part of the “international law” (I prefered to put it in brackets because of the disagreements of its existence) binding on the countries signing them , expression of the liberal thinking, gave the right to the citizens to know about the public affairs their country is involved in.

But following the idea of Ernest Satow that after the World War II and until the collapse of the Soviet Union “new and old diplomacy coexisted” (Robert; 2009:15) it could be added that this is the case even today. Despite the power of the mass media some aspects of the “high politics” could not be reached by the public. This situation is likely to be designated as secrecy which is an aspect of the old diplomacy.

On the other hand, the comprehension that not only war but also cooperation among the states may be regarded as an evolution for the new diplomacy. For instance, the USA reached its economic growth via the idea of cooperation in expanding its economy exports creating an open market and free trade at the same time as fulfilling its self-interest of hegemonic desire.

But it is not really new because diplomacy was used to express the sates’ self-interest huger through war. What is new is the understanding to replace the war with cooperation.

Thanks to the evolution of the human thinking the cooperation started to alter the relations among states, the respect of human rights and liberties were codified, non-state actors emerged partly as a consequence of this cooperation among the countries which transformed the diplomacy to a practice more overt to the citizens of these countries.

Diplomacy "Old" and "New"

Firstly, it is important to explain what does the „diplomacy” means. “Diplomacy in world politics refers to a communications process between international actors that seeks through negotiation to resolve conflict short of war” (Baylis&Smith, 2001:388). In our module we are trying to understand the difference between the old, traditional diplomacy and the new one.

Traditional diplomacy bases on a bilateral relations, with only two parts involved. The emergence of non-state actors ( NGOs, etc ) created a new situation, it brought new participants of international affairs. What is characteristic for the “new” diplomacy is that the negotiations and talks aren’t bilateral anymore, they became more open and involving more actors. There has been a significant change if it goes about the issues that are touched by diplomats. It’s not only about war, as it was in traditional diplomacy (“high politics”), but also about the environment, social issues, economy, etc (“low politics”). In my opinion the change in this area is connected with the changes that are taking place in our world – issues such global warming, economic crisis, poverty, etc, are touching everyone and states need to deal with those problems on a international level, through talks and negotiations.

Coming back to the seminar discussion and the point that was made about naming every politician a diplomat – I think we should make a distinction between a politician and a diplomat; even though every politician is believed to represent the country, it is not his/her main role, as it belongs to diplomats.

Another point was about the “new” diplomacy, that it isn’t really new, it’s just a traditional diplomacy taken to upper level. It’s hard not to agree with that, but that’s just how it is. The world changes, so does the diplomacy. It’s obvious that it couldn’t change suddenly, but it was a long process of transformation that started in 19^th Century. I’m sure that in next 100 years it’s going to look different than today.

The same game with a different playground

In the beginning, I want to emphasize that the new diplomacy is not much different from its former forms as for instance in Byzantine Empire 1500 years ago. It is still about bribery, dishonesty, dissemination of false information, gathering information, secrecy and showing off own power. All these features we can see all around us, usually, only with different names. As for instance bribery is called direct/indirect financial support (Israel’s lobbying groups in the UK)(1) . What is really new about the new diplomacy is sophistication and ideological fights. All this is accompanied by technologies which are new and give great power to states, development of psychology, and a wide spread of liberal democracies. Political changes in 20th century, when the most countries in the world became democracies and the growth of the most dangerous ideology ever communism, have changed the environment into which all greedy and power seeking entities had to get adapted. It would be silly to think that people are less greedy nowadays. They have to only find ways how to carry out what they want. Since the time of Edward Bernays, psychology and propaganda have greatly developed and have been used by many dictators and democratic states in promoting their own interest. Psychological warfare and public diplomacy is used in promoting state’s or individuals’ interest when attacked people are not aware of the attack (2). The most significant change is only in the methods, structure of the diplomacy and the potentials that super powers, as the USA, have.

1)http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23997.htm, pro-Israel lobbying groups in the UK
2)Former KGB agent explaining the Soviet psychological warfare in other countries, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj0Id3BLFco&feature=PlayList&p=66245842658CE1AF&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3

Diplomacy changing, along with the International system

Diplomacy is communication and negotiation between states to settle agreements or disputes, and the main purpose being to have good relations between states. One of the biggest differences between "old" and "new" diplomacy is that more states and also other actors, such as NGOs and MNCs, are represented and allowed to participate in these negotiations. Diplomacy today is usually not practiced between a selected few, but rather multilateraly, so it is not as closed, exclusive and secret as it used to be. This may be due to the changing nature of international relations; many new important issues on the agenda, such as the environment, which affects us all and requires global cooperation and discussion. It can be questioned whether all states have the same amount of power to affect negotiations, as a realist could argue that the big powers are still the ones making the decisions at the end of the day, they can use soft power to persuade in order to achieve their own goals. A positive view could be the NGOs' participation, as they are not controlled by any one state and therefore not all actors are driven by national interest. Another big change is that the public actually gets to see what the states are up to, for example the Copenhagen conference last year, and can be more aware about the diplomatic relations between the states and what deals are being made. It is arguable whether this is a good thing or not, as diplomacy then is in front of a big audience, where many may not have broad knowledge about international relations and politics.

Many a Little Makes a Mickle?

Hey guys,
Here comes my first contribution to blog group D.
I believe blogging gives us a good opportunity to discuss subjects relevant to our module readings in a fluent and figurative way. So unlike the abstract and formal (read: dull) style of writing which is usually expected from academic scripts the idea of blogs allow us to fully develop our individual technique of composing academic texts. (Just wanted to clarify how I have apprehended the idea of blogging in this module.)

Diplomacy.
A word often used but rarely fully comprehended. For many this word connotes secrecy, exclusivity, elitist actors and deals behind closed doors. Here, diplomacy is viewed as the procedures of highly placed upper-class men executing secret foreign political agreements, with highly placed upper-class men from other countries.
It could be argued that the realist stances of diplomacy have contributed to the feeling of exclusiveness and distance between diplomacy and the public.
I believe one of the most important changes in the sphere of diplomacy is the “opening up” and including (the often neglected) public. Even though including the public does not literally suggest public involvement in the diplomatic affairs it still marks a shift from the more traditional view of diplomacy, where information “would not and should not” be open to the masses.

In Diplomacy by Brian White (2005) the major shifts from the conventional to the “new” diplomacy are discussed and elaborated. Although the major structures of diplomacy have remained very much the same, a few small but important changes can be detected. As an example are states no longer the sole actors and influences of diplomacy (White 2005:391). MNC’s, INGO’s, NGO’s and even CBO’s (community-based organizations) are in the age of globalization important actors in the international stage, hence also influencing the sphere of diplomacy. White acknowledges a second change of diplomacy which I believe have had major impacts of diplomacy in the twenty-first century. Governments transformation in activates from “night-watchmen states” (solely focused on the physical security of its citizens) to “welfare states” (White 2005:391) denotes a change from the realist view of diplomacy to a more liberal-democratic oriented approach. The more frequent multilateral agreements and the compromises between different actors (and not only states) demonstrates that diplomacy have adapted to the modern day changes.
These changes, major or minor, are not for all seen as positive adjustments to the new global order. By making diplomacy more public many (realists in particular) believe the major power of diplomacy is evidently lost. I disagree.
I do not believe all diplomatic activities should be fully open to public scrutiny. What I try to emphasize, and what I consider one of many important changes regarding diplomacy is that accountability and inclusiveness is now compromised in the sphere and discourse of diplomacy.

THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS

The significant change that I considerate is related to the non-actor organisations.

looking today the diplomacy changed to a different path that it once was traditional and distinct for main actors powers in old diplomacy.

The nature of the the new diplomacy went to another level of development of resources and negotiations, not only through main superpowers countries such USA and UK but reached the level of third world countries to be part of the new diplomacy as well. As the NGOs (non-governmental organizations) their contributions is the development in order to shape the economy,education and many important factors(poverty) that still a big agenda for the diplomacy role,(R.P. Barston,2006,pg 1,8).

It is important to acknowledge that once,one of these NGO were ruled or colonised from powers countries and also they were in civil wars,one of the country was for example, Angola. Now Angola got embassies in USA, UK,Sweden. The point is that Angola once was colonized by Portugal many Angolan were immigrating in Portugal looking for work or to live and Portuguese embassies were full of Angolan queuing now is the reverse ,Portuguese have to queue to get a visa to go to Angola to work or live and this amount has increased . http://allafrica.com/stories/200903110333.html

In the old diplomacy it was not available,to put in more simple way.

It is interesting to know that the new diplomacy are embracing these involvement and changes from third world countries and it has a major contributions to the New diplomacy.

The most significant change in the nature of diplomacy.

This blog focuses on the change of the nature of the “new diplomacy” at the end of the 20th century.
The most significant change in the nature of diplomacy occurred after the end of the Cold War. In the time of the Cold War, on the top of the agenda of the diplomacy was avoidance of the war conflict and the diplomatic channels were focused on the ideological confrontation between “East and West”.
‘The diplomatic activity was associated with “East-West” confrontation had a single dramatic focus – the absolute necessity of avoiding a global, nuclear conflict that could destroy the international system.’ (Baylis & Smith (2006) p 392)
The diplomacy of the Cold War period has been shaped by the superpowers and the bipolar climate of the international system, for over forty years.
This blog would argue that the watershed marking the change, occurred after the end of the Cold War. The diplomacy has changed, ideological conflict vanished, menace (at least immediate) of the nuclear conflict was resolved by diplomatic negotiations between the superpowers at the end of the Cold War, and the era of spies and bugged embassies ended.
Immediately after the end of the Cold War diplomacy did reach success in 1991 Kuwait conflict, forming diplomatic coalition, which resolved the problem. On the other hand diplomacy did fail in the same year when reluctant attitude of the EU, and nationalistic hunger for power led the Balkan into bloody conflict.
This blog argues that the end of the Cold War witnessed not just the change in the international relations, but gave a way to deeper, wider globalisation, which also changed significantly the nature of diplomacy. The globalisation did bring onto diplomatic stage new players, i.e. NGOs, INGOs, TNCs, different influential lobbies, etc. Those took on an important role in diplomacy and certainly changed the nature of the diplomacy itself, and made the diplomacy more interactive, medialised, open, and thanks to technology development more efficient and faster. ‘The changing interests of states as international actors and the growing number of non-state actors involved changed the nature of the new diplomacy as a process of negotiation. Most obviously, it made diplomacy a more complex activity involving more and different actors.’ (Baylis & Smith (2006) p 391)
In addition the diplomacy, after the Cold War relinquished the course of the solely military security and under the pressure of the new global actors engaged itself in the matters of global issues of economy, environment, culture and international terrorism.