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 19th Century. I’m sure that in next 100 years it’s going to look different than today.
I think I share your general conslusion on the "new" diplomacy and I would look at the changes within diplomacy in the broader spectrum. However, the way you moved from traditional-bilateral diplomacy could suggest that multilateral diplomacy took place only in the "modern" era (with the emergence of NGOs). You could mention the beginning of multilateral diplomacy in the 19th century-Congress of Vienna. I also think you are right when you say we should distinguish between a politician and a diplomat but in my opinion, this is a hard task. Politicians are always associated with a particular country and its public image whether it is done intentionally or unintentionally. They represent people and therefore they should not do things that are inappropriate just because they re not diplomats and they do not hold their status.
ReplyDelete