My understanding of diplomacy today

The new diplomacy module has offered me a deeper understanding of the process of diplomacy. I cannot say that my opinions have radically changed, but I have got a chance to better understand, how it really works and I can better support my arguments. I can now give much more evidence about what I say. I have learnt some important historical facts about how the diplomacy has developed and got a chance to make a comparison between the old and new diplomacy. I have also realized how the public diplomacy is important and how it is used by states and all its limitations and advantages. I have realized some new facts about the embassies in foreign countries and mainly how those embassies work. It was very helpful to talk about all actors that act in the diplomatic process and how significant they are or eventually are not. I have recognized how particular actors in states’ governments are important in negotiating, for instance, the prime minister can sometimes overcome the foreign minister in negotiating and even negotiate without the foreign minister knowing about it. It is also related to secrecy in the diplomacy and that states are not like one unit, but there are many parts and departments in states that can even negotiate on their own.

My understanding of diplomacy today

I have recently listened to a podcast of Professor Brian Hocking from 2009 delivered in the Governance and International Relations Research Seminar Series at London Metropolitan University in which he stated that “the essence of diplomacy is communications”. At the beginning of the module my view about the discipline was concentrated on the relations among states and their skills of negotiation.


Ten weeks later, my scope of view broadened including non-state actors taking part in the negotiations and in this way multiplying the number of people involved in the discipline. Not only their number increased but also the matters diplomacy is concerned with- the “globalization” of the trade, the widening scope of environmental disasters spreading beyond state borders, and the disrespect of human rights by numerous governments. With the democratization of the state system and the freedom of expression the expectation for openness of the international diplomatic relations was and still is just ostensibly true. Nevertheless, the citizens find another way of participating indirectly in the profession of diplomacy- through membership in non-governmental organizations, signing petitions or moratoriums etc.
Now, my opinion expanded to that

Diplomacy did not lose its essence; it won complexity of matters and actors cooperating and integrating themselves into the discipline.
Pictures borrowed from:
• www.blogs.worldbank.org/governance/page?page=1
• www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/02/shaking-hands.jpg

My understandings of diplomacy today

Looking back to my first impression of Diplomacy it gives a different view of your understand of diplomacy. Diplomacy has embraced different styles of diplomacy form the European style, the American revolutionary style and the third world styles which gives the great importance were and how is the diplomacy, with new factors involved. Form traditional diplomacy that attributes his negotiations, protocols and secrecy to a more modern diplomacy open so to speak diplomacy which involve tackling more now a days issues, such as security, military controls and environmental. The changes varied from states as no longer the main actors, more participation from international organisations and the non-actors engagements helped to change the nature of the diplomacy. The new development of diplomacy brings the public diplomacy, the Internet, World Wide Web all are involved in process of diplomacy. Nevertheless diplomacy is involvement that links countries into low politics in order for the self benefit of their own countries and exercises the culture and policies to a neighbour country it also exercise the negotiations that involve with abroad embassies, diplomats meetings, summitry, trade and bilateral. Today with more involvement with non-actors and non organisations (NGOs) involvements helps to expand the diplomacy agenda to tackle poverty and developments from developing countries. Diplomacy is a good method for forming alliances with countries in order to help the development of a particular governments or country , the public diplomacy as well cultural collaborations, the creations of embassies especial from third world countries, the in or out of people around the world it all contribute for the diplomacy to be more efficient and right because is still long way and still lots of issues that many ambassadors should tackle(health, poverty ,stopping the hard power usage) we just have to wait and see is ,it is the beginner of things that is what I understand what diplomacy is.

Changes in my way of understanding "New Diplomacy"

During those few months of studying the "new diplomacy" my view on the topic did not change too much. My first idea about what is new in diplomacy was creating new ways of creating and mainaining relations between states. The process of globalization made it easier to communicate and commute, technological development allowed politicians to attend conferences virtually, via telephone or videocameras. What was not surprising for me as well was the change within the international relation's system, specifically that "states were no longer the only actors involved" (Baylis and Smith 2005:390). Numbers speak for themselves: 1909 - 176 NGOs, 1954 - 1255 NGOs, 2007 - 27723 NGOs ( Kegley 2009:190). NGOs play a very important part in negotiations, they are able to influence states and other NGOs. What is more, after the period of Cold War and bilateral world, there came a time for more participants to take part in diplomacy processes. That is why the phenomenon of multilateral diplomacy was a thing that must have occured in order to restore balance in the world. Although I might have surmised what the "new" diplomacy is about, but it would not be so clear without attending this module, which gave me a wider look at the diplomacy.

Sources:
Kegley, Ch (2009) World Politics. Trend and Transformation, Cengage
Baylis, J and Smith, S (2005) The Globalization of the World Politics. An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford University Press

My understanding of diplomacy today

Looking back at what I had written at the beginning of this module regarding what I considered that diplomacy was, I have now discovered that I had a very narrow-minded view of the subject. For me it was about the relationships and communications between states, and how to improve these by having embassies. My understanding was also that it was mainly bilateral and concerning high politics, and that secrecy was more common than not. I did not realize the amount of issues that diplomacy actually covers; not only security and crisis management, but also the environment, trade, development, etc. I have learned more about the history of diplomacy and the evolution towards new ways of conducting it, as well as about the importance of public diplomacy in today’s international arena. Globalization, new technologies and more media coverage have all contributed to this change in how diplomacy is practiced. I still believe that there is some “old” diplomacy being used in certain situations; however it would be difficult to solve today’s main issues without the multilateral communications and negotiations. The participation of the NGOs in diplomatic processes has also made me realize that it is not only government officials that can be involved in diplomatic negotiations nowadays, which is a positive thing as it enables important subjects to be put high on the agenda, which they otherwise probably wouldn’t have been. My knowledge of this subject has certainly improved as I know understand how broad it actually is.

My understanding of diplomacy today.

My understanding of diplomacy today.



I would not say that, my understanding of diplomacy or my opinions about the role of diplomacy have changed much. I still do think – as I did when I wrote a short paper at the beginning of the term – that the role of diplomacy in its broad sense, is to negotiate; construct alliances, treaties and agreements and through those to maintain interactions among states and more importantly through the art of conducting international relations build up inter-state relationships and maintain the peace by political instruments.
But I must (gladly) admit that, my knowledge broadened up immensely, it is much deeper and complex after the completing the New Diplomacy module. My comprehension and intellectual grasp of the subject of diplomacy is indisputably enriched and improved. Thanks to the New Diplomacy module, I have gained awareness of many different categories and disciplines of diplomacy, which I have not been aware of before. I was enlightened by the module on the subject-matter of the origins and evolution of diplomacy, theoretical aspect of the discipline and patterns of diplomacy in a globalised world.

How has my opinion about the role of diplomacy in world politics changed since the start of the module?

My opinion about the role of diplomacy in world politics has changed completely. First of all, I would never say that we can date the origin of diplomacy so far. Second of all, I am impressed by the power of public diplomacy in world politics, as well as how strong the role diplomacy itself possesses in the international arena. Thanks to the New Diplomacy module, I released how important the roles of embassies and ambassadors are, and how full of secrecy the diplomatic world is. My knowledge of this subject has developed widely. I really learned many new and very interesting things. 

My (New) Insights of the New Diplomacy

I would argue that my opinions about the role of diplomacy in world politics have changed mainly due to one reason. I have during these month come to understand what diplomacy in fact is. In the first lecture we had to write our thoughts and understandings of firstly the definition of diplomacy, secondly the traits of “New” diplomacy, and conclusively what we hope to gain from this module. Looking back, I can now see that my initial understanding of diplomacy was rather conventional. I perceived the definition of diplomacy as: the rules and norms of conduct that establishes good relations with foreign states in order to prevent conflict. Being quite a bit too state centric when it came to the definition of diplomacy, I understood the concept of new diplomacy fairly better (I must admit), where new diplomacy was for me: less elitist e.g. making deals behind closed doors and instead more open and “inclusive” (rather abstract, I know). Conclusively I wished: to gain a better understanding of the changes of the diplomatic nature, and also an insight of what diplomacy is in our contemporary time.

So, have I reached what I aspired? I would argue yes. During these months I have come to learn that diplomacy is many-sided, there are many subcategories within the diplomatic practice which all fulfil different requirements. I have come to understand how diplomacy traditionally was conducted. I have also come to learn how diplomacy has adapted to our worlds changing nature, and how this practice has maintained even though many have claimed a decline of its importance. My knowledge of this subject has developed beyond the traditional (Berridge inspired) rather narrow definition of what diplomacy proper is. Instead, I (and I guess am not alone) have come to realise that diplomacy nowadays has evolved into a practice which is compounded out of various actors, and not as I (rather mistakenly) implied in the beginning of this module, solely state officials.

The importance of Multilateral Diplomacy

‘Multilateral diplomacy owed its growing popularity to the fact that conferences in the European States-system were essentially conferences of Great powers’ (Berridge, 2010, 144).
Multilateral diplomacy or conferences is a phenomenon of the 20th century.
According to the Foreign Policy Centre (FPC), governments can no longer afford to ignore the value of multilateral diplomacy as a strategic tool for solving problems.
Therefore multilateral diplomacy address the following issues: human rights, humanitarian assistance, labour rights, national and transnational environmental issues, fair trade and in all of these cases, national sovereignty is challenge.
But today, the increase member of richer nations from G8 to G20 shows how multilateral diplomacy is important on raising important issues like the world financial crisis which in 2008/2009 affect lesser developed nations.
Foe example the EU plays a structurally driven great power role in the UNFF (The EU in International Forestry Negotiations) and has a common trade policy (The Common Commercial Policy) and is unanimously viewed as a great power in trade diplomacy. (Elgstrom, 2007, 451).

Innovation of the "new" diplomacy

The end of the Cold War, is argued, is the time of the history where the term globalization began to be widely used. As we all know, this is the time of triumph of liberal democracy and of course, democratic values such as freedom of expression, self determination, etc..Furthermore, the increasing interconnectedness between states led to the globalization of politics, markets and issues of any type. In this sense, the world saw the emergence of wide range of human activities, which are not consistent of geographical location, and most important of all, with government permission or regulations. Few argued, that much of this activities has had a little political or diplomatic significance, but most agreed that this non-state actors somehow weakened government authority in a general way, but mainly the traditional state to state diplomatic activity. As a result, non-governmental organisation have adopted much higher activities, taking oppositionist approach to a specific government decisions, especially in humanitarian and human rights entity. This on the other hand, has led to the believe that there has been a revolution of the traditional government to government diplomacy and particularly in recent years, diplomatic representation is also widely given to non-governmental actors. Furthermore, management of global issues increasingly involve new actors beyond the state. It is arguable, International treaties an organizations, such as WTO, were believed to be too centred on their interest of capitalist enterprises. Therefore, in attempt to counterbalance this trend, NGO’s have been developed to emphasise humanitarian issues, sustainable aid and development. NGO’s, such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Oxfam, Global 2000, Save the Children and many, many more have really managed not only to raise an awareness about certain issues, but has provided much needed help towards tackling the issues.

Despite the fact that NGO’s have been heavily criticized of being politically orientated and serving a particular state’s interests, they still remain important players in the diplomatic activities as they are aiming to achieve what governments are not capable of dealing with. Or perhaps, this is what we might call a soft power....

The new diplomatic arena

With the emergence of the new diplomacy, the international negotiation arena augmented the number of seats and recitals to play. We have heard human rights issues, humanitarian aids, transboundary environmental issues, free trade, which involves an increase of the actors on the said above arena.
While the “old diplomacy” respected the state boundaries, the frontiers in the “new diplomacy” are transparent, now the curtains behind the actors on the scene are available for the spectators. The globalized arena permits the spreading of knowledge, information, new technologies including weapons; air pollution, impoverished biodiversity, water pollution etc. The occurrence of these positive and negative globalizational facts necessitated the creation of international rules governing above the states and because of the recklessness of the negotiators to operate these symptoms of globalization it was made the appearance of non-state actors speaking together with the global citizens, thus involving them on the negotiating international arena.
A recent example is my involvement as a citizen of Europe (organized by Greenpeace) in signing a European petition which aims to obtain 1 million of signatures for a moratorium on all European Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) approvals until the reforms required by the member states have not been completed by the Commission. I am playing a role on the arena, a minuscule role, but gathered together with the other participants we are speaking as negotiators. This invention incorporated in the “new diplomacy” is giving a chance for the better and for the worse, but the increase of the players strengthens the successful outcomes of the negotiations.

Aspects of the New Diplomacy

What is observable in the world diplomacy is a change in terms of the dimension of diplomacy. It is not only diplomacy between two countries, but there are more actors involved. The amount of conferences attended by more than two or three states increased; as a result multilateral diplomacy occurred and although it is not completely new, it is believed to be “a twentieth-century phenomenon” (Berridge 2010:143). What is important to notice, is that some of those multilateral conferences have become permanent. Moreover, it is strictly connected with the emergence of new actors on the international relations' scene. Those new actors, like, e.g. NGOs “influence inter-state behaviour to achieve their own objectives” (Baylis&Smith 2005:391) Their activity is remarkably visible if we look at the environmental issues and conferences that are taking place. Since United Nations Conference on Human Environment, held in Stockholm in 1972, NGO involvement in international decision-making processes related to the environment and sustainable development has escalated. If we would like to compare, representatives of more than 250 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) attended the Stockholm Conference, whilst more than 1,400 NGOs were accredited to the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro (Betsill 2008:1). Another important aspect in terms of “new diplomacy” is using technological development (telephones or video-conferences) in order to communicate. Although “telephone diplomacy has serious drawbacks” non other mean of communication “has been greater than that on the telephone” (Berridge 2010:193). As an example we can take reaction of the worlds' leaders on the death of Polish President, Lech Kaczyński:

Obama calls Polish Prime Minister after crash http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9025935

The most important aspect of "new" diplomacy

Looking at the new aspects that are included in “new” diplomacy, I would have to say that the most important one has to be the emergence of non-state actors in diplomatic processes. Public diplomacy appears to be, in many ways, propaganda, but with a new name. NGOs mostly work on issues multilaterally, so multilateral diplomacy goes hand in hand with the fact the NGOs are more influential in international relations today. This is just another evolution of diplomacy, as the world changes throughout time, diplomacy has to follow. One may argue that, because of NGOs involvement in diplomatic processes, this might threaten the power of the state, as diplomats traditionally have been government officials. But due to the NGOs growing popularity and ability to push issues on the agenda and be heard, states have been “forced” to include them. This does not necessarily threaten the state, but gives the state a new partner to communicate and negotiate with. That I think is important, that states and NGOs work together, as they have different abilities and approaches. Also, they usually have different interests; governments tend to be driven by national interests, while NGOs tend to be driven by a cause that they are fighting for. The most important thing the NGOs do, in my opinion, is that they are able to mobilize public support for important issues that otherwise may not have been high up on the agenda. There are many examples of this, but a very good one is the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. If it hadn’t been for a collective effort by different NGO’s pushing this campaign, there probably would not have been much achieved on this issue. Their campaign eventually led to the treaty to ban landmines in 1997 in Ottawa, and as of 20th March 2006, 154 countries have signed up to the treaty.
http://www.handicap-international.org.uk/page_391.php
Interestingly though, the United States have chosen not to sign it…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1SU5LGj6_E

THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE NEW DIPLOMACY

The traditional diplomacy was more dis tint in ancient Greece because of the communication process with modern states rather than rather that any form of organisations like church at the time
As it grew politically states found them more connected to contribute.
One of the important aspects are public diplomacy which is describing as new factor of the diplomacy even named as propaganda as many diplomats are very uneasy about the term, public diplomacy brought the soft power to negotiate with different foreign states and non-actors states and Resident embassies across the world which makes the value of the consular services important due to increase flow of people across frontiers.(Feilleux, J.pg55)

Other important aspect states were not longer the only actors involved they are engaging with international actors and non-governmental private or groups’ members such as NGOs and MNCs.
The diplomacy work is in done in vaster scale; diplomats found themselves dealing with large amount of issues that in traditional diplomacy was rare. The today’s problems that various from environmental, population, military security, ideology and territorial rivalry and human rights. The NGOs and Non-states actors play an important role in address these issues to governments. There is a fine line between domestic and international affairs and today is becoming more difficult to separate both.
Although NGOs limitation are wide not having the benefits that diplomacy offers such as special immunities they still maintain as important in order to affect the course of the diplomacy. (Berridge,G .pg253)

Of course we can encounter many aspects from technologies and innovations, transformations the growth of the multi lateral diplomacy but is not New or Old diplomacy is basically Mature diplomacy that deals with different aspects of today like common interest, preventing violence, trying collaborate with developed countries in more diplomatic way and stopping conflicts by forming alliance through diplomacy. (Berridge, G ,pg 255)

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy

The new diplomacy is characterised mostly by new actors that operate on the international level, for instance, different kinds of NGOs (Green Peace, Oxfam etc.) but also multinational corporations. Diplomacy is not any more concentrated in hands of a few leaders but also in hands of ordinary citizens (1). Nowadays, we live in a freedom that allows us to become influential and it is the main reason, why there are so many NGOs in the world. Realists and pluralists would argue how influential those groups are, but the fact is that they operate on the international level and try to push forward their causes and try to influence governments. Realists would also argue that it is still states that have to sign new treaties or to change laws but NGOs have the role to influence the discussion that will later end up in signing a new treaty. NGOs have developed sophisticated and effective techniques, for example, Amnesty International has policies that members can lead campaigns only in deferent countries than their country of origin but it has also a security reason(2). NGOs are also influential, because they are often focus only on one issue and they have experts that work only on that issue, but states must deal with multiple issues. NGOs cooperate with other NGOs for the reason to become more influential or better reach their aims, for instance, European NGOs work through African NGOs in helping poor people or people affected by war.
The new diplomacy has to deal with very different issues which the old diplomacy did not deal with, for instance, international terrorism, nuclear weapons, global warming, human rights and many others and it demands a new kind of diplomacy (3).


(1) Pachios, Harold C. (2002) . The new diplomacy
(2) www.amnesty.org.uk
(3)Willian R. Moomaw, The New Diplomacy, http://fletcher.tufts.edu/ierp/pdfs/NewDiplomacy.2.pdf

The important aspects and the "New", in New Diplomacy

During these weeks we have followed the evolvement of diplomacy from its traditional form to the current practice of diplomacy, which has come to be regarded the “New Diplomacy”. Even though the practice and conduct of this new diplomacy is not always truly new, and does not in fact represent a complete alteration from its traditional form, many improvements and modifications can be detected. What I would argue is the foremost important improvement of the new diplomacy is the incorporation of the long neglected “great mass”. While it still cannot be argued that the public is truly included in the political sphere, the new diplomacy has as a minimum demonstrated that the public has developed into a variable included in the diplomatic equation. In the age of information and wide-spread technological communication means, the role of the public has turned greatly significant, much because the public itself has become a lot more aware and involved with the different (political, environmental, societal etc.) issues of the world. The new diplomacy demonstrates how traditional practices much often need to change, especially in our time of globalization. These changes can be detected in the new diplomatic practice in for instance its (new founded) interest in collaborating with associational life such as NGOs, INGOs, CBOs etc., or even incorporating these non-state actors in the diplomatic sphere. The emphasis on public diplomacy, that is inspiring and being inspired by the (often foreign, but also domestic) public further demonstrates the turn in diplomacy towards a more “soft power” (Nye 2004) inspired, public oriented conduct. These attributes were traditionally neglected in the sphere of diplomacy and they exemplify what the “new” in new diplomacy indicates. On these grounds, I would argue that the new, and most modify changes with diplomacy is that the actors, and receivers of diplomacy and diplomatic conduct is no longer solely delimited to the state, or the elitists state actors. On that note, contemporary diplomacy could be, in my opinion, considered “new and improved”.

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy

In my opinion, the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is the emergence of new actors, non-state actors such as NGOs, in world affairs.

The world system used to be a “nation-state” one, however nowadays different actors are involved in world politics (Leguey Feilleux, 2009:101), such as international organizations, nongovernmental organizations and multinational corporations. The new diplomacy is a multilateral diplomacy, where more than just two states are involved in negotiations.

I will focus on NGOs, which are components of civil society. They are active in open society, and what is important is that they cover a broad spectrum of human activity. Some of them do not even have anything to do with the political process. However, they are involved in negotiations, and moreover, they can create pressure in decision-making (Leguey Feilleux, 2009: 104).These actors play different roles and take care of different parts of our lives. Greenpeace, for example, is a non-governmental environmental organization, whose goal is to ensure the ability of the earth to nurture life in all its diversity. This is very important for the human being, especially nowadays, with issues like global warming, deforestation, and dangerous natural disasters. As well, they are involved in peace movements and anti-nuclear protests (http://www.greenpeace.org/international) [accessed: 12.04.2010].

 

Additionally, the roles of the media and public opinion, as well as public diplomacy, are very important aspects in new diplomacy. These actors are allowed to put pressure in the decision-making process as well.

As I have written in my blog before, public diplomacy is very important in today’s world politics, and has an impact on decision-making. For example, we can see how foreign views of the United States changed after the US decided to go to war with Iraq in 2003.  The influence of public opinion changed the U.S’ decision-making later on.  

 

As I wrote above, in my opinion the most important aspects of the new diplomacy are the interference of the new non-state actors as well as the power of media and public opinion, through which the diplomacy agenda has become much richer.

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy…

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy… There are a few aspects of the new diplomacy which differentiate the new diplomacy from the traditional diplomacy and certainly it is hard to pick up or concentrate just on one of them. Those are - just briefly – multilateral diplomacy; public diplomacy; inclusion of “low politics” and the individuals into diplomacy; special envoys; and influences of the globalization. However this blog would argue that the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is an emergence of NGOs, non-state actors and corporations, which influence the diplomacy and can reach beyond the national borders. ‘International organizations, both inter-governmental and non-governmental, have become significant diplomatic actors. With at least rudimentary diplomatic machinery, they can communicate their interests and deploy their resources to influence the outcome of negotiations.’ (Baylis&Smith (2006) The Globalization of World Politics) This blog would argue that there is no evidence of the involvement of the NGOs and other mentioned actors in or by the traditional “the old diplomacy” and they did not play any significant role as influential actors over the changes in diplomacy within the traditional framework of “the old diplomacy”. This blog would claim that, the significant appearance, involvement of the NGOs and increase of their influence onto diplomacy is evident since the end of the Cold War and by deepening of the globalization. ‘We contend that the increased participation of NGOs in the political process reflects broader changes in the nature of diplomacy in world politics.’ (Betsill&Corell (2008) NGO Diplomacy) NGOs raising influence within diplomacy is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy and certainly the unprecedented role of NGOs and their strong partnership with like-minded governments was one of the most important aspects.