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?!?
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?!?
New technology is a good point to bring up, as it changes the way we can communicate and negotiate transnationally. It means that for global issues there can be global meetings with a large "negotiation table". Also the fact that we have more players on the international arena that can influence the decision making,(NGOs, MNCs). But I agree that there certainly is some "old" diplomacy left, where the great powers negotiate alone, even about subjects that can affect all states, such as your example regarding nuclear proliferation. So one can say that the "new" diplomacy co-exists with the "old" one - and it has evolved into this "new" form out of necessity and opportunity. (due to technology, globalization and global issues)
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you on the case Obama- Medvedev.It is very actual and interesting indeed. But this case shows that the inequality among the states (powerful and developing states) is evidence of the persistence of the "old" diplomacy in an era of globalisation. A possible controversy or just the consecutive example that the globalisation can combine old and new, positive and negative?!
ReplyDelete