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.

The Old Diplomacy Is Still Relevant

The term new diplomacy has been coined to describe the diplomacy nowadays but there is no clear cut which divides the structure of the old one from the new one. It has been a gradual progress so for a better illustration, everything that we can see in the conduction of diplomacy nowadays, but was not common in the past, is new diplomacy. There is an ongoing discussion on how much the new diplomacy is new. One of the features of the new diplomacy is a use of modern technologies where people around the world can see news at the same time that those events are going on or heads of states can call each other. However, new technologies cannot replace personal contacts, if any important negotiation is supposed to take place so still negotiators must meet personally. In the modern diplomacy, often heads of states take active part in the negotiation and the number of visits is very high (1). Nothing can replace the old personal contact. It is a similar case with embassies where countries still keep ambassadors in foreign countries because they can keep in touch with people in that foreign country and can have a better understanding than just those who read news. Despite the fact that the new diplomacy can seem to be highly transparent, there are still secrets and as the former British foreign minister Robin Cook among others said the most of the negotiations are done during breaks and behind closed doors. This fact can be further supported for instance when Tony Blair visited George Bush’s ranch before the invasion of Iraq and then he became suddenly a staunch supporter of the invasion or the dubious arguments behind the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

(1) http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/trvl/pres/c7383.htm

OLD DIPLOMACY STILL RELEVANT

‘It is not surprising that the death of the resident ambassador has been indefinitely postponed’ (Berridge, 2010,123).
This strong argument from Berridge shows that ‘old diplomacy’ has survived the communications and transport revolution.
Therefore ‘old diplomacy’ is still alive and has some contemporary relevance and the most illustrative example is how’ traditional diplomacy’ is being used by the United States with the support of Western allies for Iran to comply with the international non proliferation regime for producing nuclear weapons.
Beijing believed that diplomacy should therefore be given a lot more time and has opposed any punitive measures against Iran.
The fact of sending the Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister as a low level official compare to the US, Britain, France, and Germany who send their Foreign Ministers to discuss new effort to pressure Teheran, where decisions could not be reach, showed the important role of traditional diplomacy.
This very contemporary event shows that modern technology, cannot always replace direct communication, direct contact or personal presence of the higher members of states or governments.
For instance, Chinese believed that diplomacy should be given more time because they can use their veto in the Security Council to vote against any sanctions against Iran and normally the US and European Countries can’t act without UN approval.
Therefore the final option is for some European and American diplomats to hold out hope that they will be able to bring China around the table but only with old diplomatic manner by the use of secrecy and high politics.
So what options does Obama have left?
http://www.time.com/world/article/0,8599,1956075,00.html?iid=sphere
‘To Obama’s Pile of Woes, add a failing Iran Policy’ (Jan, 25, 2010)

THE OLD AND NEW DIPLOMACY

The old and the new diplomacy

It has different ways to approach the theories that the new diplomacy has a little taste or part of the old diplomacy that still in use today.
By mention 2 factors that still relevant in modern diplomacy.
1. Factor the French system, that was brought up by British diplomat Harold that allows the states have resident missions (embassies) in states that you negotiating with. The old diplomacy was more distinct in ancient Greece as form of communications and negotiations system in order to deal domestic affairs. But as it the old diplomacy grew politically States founded themselves more connected to contribute by using indirect diplomacy by sending diplomats abroad for the negotiations or communications. (Barston, 2006).
In this ancient times diplomats’ were sent abroad very often and temporary embassies were very costly as the sates grow politically so the expansion of the diplomacy. The diplomats’ were acting on behalf of their states which included allocate themselves professionally in abroad territory, this policy that many countries followed.
Today, there are in modern diplomacy many resident embassies, for example Europe and Africa. http://dc.about.com/od/photos/ig/Embassy-Pictures-/Ireland.htm
2. Factor Still traditional diplomacy was secrecy, the old diplomacy was selected only by bilateral any mutual agreements, and negotiations were made in secrecy, it was very important policy. Some theorist claims that the new diplomacy is open instead of secret but secrecy still applied for the modern diplomacy.
The old diplomacy had protocol, rules and treaties modules that the new diplomacy still uses. The large amount of benefits, immunities, rights and privileges were attached to the diplomats and their activities. Also new diplomacy embraces these.
The new diplomacy uses as mirror of the old diplomacy although changes are more open and advance such as direct ,formal among political leaders the rapid correspondence, the increased of the applications, still the normal process of the diplomacy still available.(Baylis,2003).

Picture source
http://www.devir.us/imagenes/171.jpg

Do you think the ‘old’ diplomacy has any contemporary relevance?

         

     

     The origins of diplomacy are very difficult to define. For some people, diplomacy has existed forever. This view is founded in the belief that the human being has been acting in a diplomatic way since their early existence.  Others date diplomacy to the Ancient Greece city-states, and others to the Italian city-states, when the first embassies were established. 

         Nowadays, after World War One, we divide diplomacy into old and new. Obviously, the new diplomacy is based and has its origins in the old one. But in a world of globalization, technology and rapid development, the existence of new important issues and actors has caused diplomacy to change.  I will try to present some of the old diplomacy’s contemporary relevance.

        First of all, let us examine the structure of the old diplomacy. The Italian city-states were the first ones to have established the permanent, resident mission – embassies abroad (Baylis and Smith, 2005:389). After this new establishment, the other European states started to have their embassies as well. Since that time, embassies become very important institutions, which were taking care of states interests. Later on, embassies were linked with foreign departments, which were established within home states.

        As we can see, the structure of the old diplomacy is very similar to the structure of the new diplomacy. States and governments are still the major actors in the international system, and the embassy abroad is linked with the instate foreign departments. Embassies are very important institutions for the states and the states interests.  Furthermore, the importance of embassies nowadays is even bigger. As institutions, embassies not only take care of the state and it’s interests, but of their citizen as well.

http://www.moveidiot.com/moving_articles.php?article_id=2&category_id=3&language=en

      Secondly the process of traditional diplomacy was bilateral (two-part) and was based on secrecy and confidence.

   Nowadays, diplomacy is multilateral, because there is the existence of new actors (Leguey Feilleux, 2009:101): governmental and non-governmental organizations. Importantly, the multilateral diplomacy is not replacing the traditional diplomacy, but compliments it. Secrecy is still relevant in today diplomacy. The difference is, that in old diplomacy secrecy was a natural thing, and in the new diplomacy, secrecy should not exist anymore, because the new diplomacy is supposed to be the open diplomacy. Apparently in some cases it is not like this. I attached the link in which you can see that the secrecy is still present in new diplomacy: 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB145/index.htm

      Third and last argument is that the old diplomacy agenda focused mostly on the issues of war and peace.

      Today avoiding war is very important as well, especially after the First and Second World Wars. The states want to cooperate, they do not want to fight anymore. Nowadays we have the existence of the nuclear weapons, one of which’s primary roles is the prevention of wars between countries. Nuclear weapons are new tools for diplomats to keep peace and balance of power in the world. This happened during the Cold War, when the presence of this kind of weapon predicted the war between the USA and USSR.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB145/index.htm

     So as we can the old diplomacy is still relevant in today’s world.  

 

 

Do you think the ‘old’ diplomacy has any contemporary relevance?

Do you think the ‘old’ diplomacy has any contemporary relevance?

This blog would argue that it is not pertinent to talk about the relevance of the ‘old’ diplomacy to contemporary international system. This blog would argue that there is no such a thing as difference of the ‘old’ and the ‘new’. It is more about the ‘modern’ and maybe the ‘old-fashioned’; but the difference between the two is not that hard to distinguish.
According to Jules Cambon, the ‘new’ diplomacy, first, “should be more open to public scrutiny and control, and, secondly the projected establishment of an international organisation which would act both as a forum for peaceful settlement of disputes and as a deterrent waging of aggressive war.” (Hamilton&Langhorne (2000) The Practice of Diplomacy)
What is remarkable about this quotation is that Mr Cambon claimed this in 1905, not even ten years later none of the powerful states did conduct their diplomacy according Cambon’s ideas. The states of the Europe and the North America proclaimed need for the change in conduct of the diplomacy, certainly backed by a groups of pacifists; but question is if such a change happened or not. This blog would argue and would intitule such an idea as naive. Otherwise if those ideas would get into practical arrangements of diplomacy, there would be a great chance to avert the events which led the world into the WWI or WWII. Maybe it is more appropriate to ask ourselves if a secretive and exclusive diplomacy did or did not play its part that led us into the war. This blog does not hesitate to point out, that the same happened in 1938 onwards, when Germany, thanks to diplomacy – which certainly was not new, according Cambon’s ideas – seized Czechoslovakia (Munich Agreement) when NaziGermany, Britain, France and Italy decided in secrecy about the future of the Czechoslovakia, without even inviting it to the meeting. This blog unfortunately is too short for me to talk about all the other agreements throughout this period (i.e. Yalta February 1945, Potsdam August 1945); I am going to rely on reader’s knowledge.
The same has been happening throughout the period of the Cold War (important figure and good example of the ‘old’ diplomacy in the time of the ‘new’ one is Henry Kissinger, please watch included video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7NdNr4vndE) and there is no doubt that diplomacy carried all the specifics of the ‘old’ diplomacy; secrecy, exclusiveness and high politics.
So what has actually changed about diplomacy after the end of the Cold War?
Diplomatic channels are more efficient, public is better, faster informed about the happenings, thanks to telecommunication and technology development, but, still, public is fed with information which is approved and granted “for public”; we can find a lot on the internet by a click, but than again we can find what was decided that we can find.
This blog started with a claim about the ‘modern’ and the ‘old-fashioned’ diplomacy, ‘modern’ in a way that diplomacy is using all the benefactions of the technological development or globalisation to its advantage; and an ‘old-fashioned’ diplomacy in terms of keeping certain information and meetings secret in the name of national gain or security.
In conclusion this blog reasons that contemporary relevance of the ‘old’ diplomacy - if we have to necessary differentiate diplomacy to the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ – is evident.