A reflective group blog by some of the students on The New Diplomacy module at London Metropolitan University
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
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.
I believe you have a good point in your text which is often forgotten and overlooked. Summits, multilateral meetings, conferences etc. do not occur out of nowhere. As you explained, the pre-negotiations and even agenda setting is neither made by the public, nor made in public. What occurs behind closed doors and what influences the agenda of conferences demonstrates that the secret and elitist character of diplomacy is nevertheless still present, illustrating that the distinction between traditional and contemporary diplomacy is at times very indistinct.
d 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.
I believe you have a good point in your text which is often forgotten and overlooked. Summits, multilateral meetings, conferences etc. do not occur out of nowhere. As you explained, the pre-negotiations and even agenda setting is neither made by the public, nor made in public. What occurs behind closed doors and what influences the agenda of conferences demonstrates that the secret and elitist character of diplomacy is nevertheless still present, illustrating that the distinction between traditional and contemporary diplomacy is at times very indistinct.
ReplyDelete