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.