The students posting their thoughts on this blog have now completed the module. I have set up a series of new blogs for the students who are about to start the module this week. Please follow and comment on their work at:
http://thenewdiplomacya.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyb.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyc.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyd.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacye.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyf.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyg.blogspot.com/
Thursday 7 October 2010
Friday 7 May 2010
The Foreign Affairs Debate - 2010 Election
Debate on foreign affairs between David Miliband for Labour, William Hague for the Conservatives and Ed Davey for the Lib Dems. They are cross-examined by Andrew Neil, diplomatic Correspondent and BBC Newsnight's Mark Urban. The focus is about the role of Britain in international affairs.
William Hague believes that there is too much interference from the EU legally and politically and he wants to be part of the EU but he does not want the EU to rule Britain. Davy wants to create European super state with full authority, he also in favour to replace the Britain seat in the security council to EU seat, while David mililand wants to engage Europe on mutual benefit bases.
Another interesting point is the strategic role of British forces, the lib dems wants to get rid of Britain’s nuclear trident missiles and Vanguard submarines, they also wants cancel production of 2 aircraft carrier plus euro fighters although that is costing a job losses, it is going to save around £100 billion pound to buy the debate, but isn't that making Britain weaker and more vulnerable specially when more rogue states like Iran and North Korea have nuclear ambition or we don’t know where the Pakistani nuclear is gone end up since it is blearing into civil war. What do you think?
Certainly the labour and the conservative both have agree that it is unwise to Britain to abandon it is nuclear, since the future is uncertain and we can't predict how the world may look like in 30 or 40 year time. But the problem with the labour and the conservative is that they want to spend whole lot of money, about £100BN which they don’t have. I think they are mortgaging the future of this country and they gone leave us debate like Greece where our country will need bail out from elsewhere (e.g. America, France or may be Chine). What do you think?
There a lot of issues where the parties have big difference in their political manifesto, if see anything interesting, lets us share to debate.
To watch the Debate Click on the following link. enjoy.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s61j8/The_Daily_Politics_2010_Election_Debates_The_Foreign_Affairs_Debate/?from=r
William Hague believes that there is too much interference from the EU legally and politically and he wants to be part of the EU but he does not want the EU to rule Britain. Davy wants to create European super state with full authority, he also in favour to replace the Britain seat in the security council to EU seat, while David mililand wants to engage Europe on mutual benefit bases.
Another interesting point is the strategic role of British forces, the lib dems wants to get rid of Britain’s nuclear trident missiles and Vanguard submarines, they also wants cancel production of 2 aircraft carrier plus euro fighters although that is costing a job losses, it is going to save around £100 billion pound to buy the debate, but isn't that making Britain weaker and more vulnerable specially when more rogue states like Iran and North Korea have nuclear ambition or we don’t know where the Pakistani nuclear is gone end up since it is blearing into civil war. What do you think?
Certainly the labour and the conservative both have agree that it is unwise to Britain to abandon it is nuclear, since the future is uncertain and we can't predict how the world may look like in 30 or 40 year time. But the problem with the labour and the conservative is that they want to spend whole lot of money, about £100BN which they don’t have. I think they are mortgaging the future of this country and they gone leave us debate like Greece where our country will need bail out from elsewhere (e.g. America, France or may be Chine). What do you think?
There a lot of issues where the parties have big difference in their political manifesto, if see anything interesting, lets us share to debate.
To watch the Debate Click on the following link. enjoy.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s61j8/The_Daily_Politics_2010_Election_Debates_The_Foreign_Affairs_Debate/?from=r
My understanding of New Diplomacy today: the 'old' one with new actors...
The way I understand 
diplomacy nowadays have not changed a lot since the start of this module. In my point of view, the main obvious change in New Diplomacy is the new actors that can nowadays be defined as diplomats. This is also true regarding my opinion on the topic. Indeed, four months ago, states’ diplomats were the only actors capable of practicing diplomacy. As I wrote in the first lecture about my way of understanding diplomacy: ‘When head of states do not or cannot meet, there are diplomats to actually keep relationship between those states going.’ Four months after, I am aware of the new different kind of actors that have entered the subject and how that change is the foundation of much more change: rise of communication, openness in the practice of diplomacy, rise of the public opinion’s importance, strength in public diplomacy states’ relationship, etc.
I think all these changes are all interconnected. But the most important one is still the rise of new diplomatic actors, especially NGO’s ones. All of my blog do talk about this, so there is no need for me to keep arguing the same thing once more... But what is for sure is that I do not consider that all UK national citizens are or could be UK diplomats... This would include everybody in the world, and it is not true that we are all diplomats, since to be a diplomats still means something very specific: you have to behave and approach the person you are talking to in a very specific way, and also the topics brought into the agenda have to be made by p
ersons who know specifically what they are talking about, in order to be credible.
So, if Jody Williams might be considered as a diplomat and an important actor in the campaign for banding landmines, Sophie Marceau is not a French diplomat whose work is to preserve French’s image and interest.
diplomacy nowadays have not changed a lot since the start of this module. In my point of view, the main obvious change in New Diplomacy is the new actors that can nowadays be defined as diplomats. This is also true regarding my opinion on the topic. Indeed, four months ago, states’ diplomats were the only actors capable of practicing diplomacy. As I wrote in the first lecture about my way of understanding diplomacy: ‘When head of states do not or cannot meet, there are diplomats to actually keep relationship between those states going.’ Four months after, I am aware of the new different kind of actors that have entered the subject and how that change is the foundation of much more change: rise of communication, openness in the practice of diplomacy, rise of the public opinion’s importance, strength in public diplomacy states’ relationship, etc.I think all these changes are all interconnected. But the most important one is still the rise of new diplomatic actors, especially NGO’s ones. All of my blog do talk about this, so there is no need for me to keep arguing the same thing once more... But what is for sure is that I do not consider that all UK national citizens are or could be UK diplomats... This would include everybody in the world, and it is not true that we are all diplomats, since to be a diplomats still means something very specific: you have to behave and approach the person you are talking to in a very specific way, and also the topics brought into the agenda have to be made by p
ersons who know specifically what they are talking about, in order to be credible.So, if Jody Williams might be considered as a diplomat and an important actor in the campaign for banding landmines, Sophie Marceau is not a French diplomat whose work is to preserve French’s image and interest.
Thursday 6 May 2010
The New Diplomacy through a New Lenses
At the beginning of this course I filled the questionnaire about what I expect from this course and how I understand it so far. Before this course my understanding of diplomacy was quite limited and this is a shocking discovery. We all had written essays about MNCs and NGOs in the earlier modules but I have never realised that that was a part of the new diplomacy. My understanding of diplomacy was quite limited to thinking that diplomacy can only happen between heads of states or diplomats. My other discovery was that new diplomacy does not differ from the old one. The basics of good understanding of issue, tradition and history is also important. The development of modern communication did not cut off the old ways of diplomatic communications such as face to face or private meetings between state leaders or their counterparts. Understanding the rising importance of NGOs or public diplomacy have to mentioned as this is a quite radical change. No state leader could have thought of a group of individuals to challenge his or state opinion or decision-making in a modern civilised way about a century ago. Usually it would be a beginning of mass unrest or revolution. So my answer to the question regarding change of opinion about the role of new diplomacy has changed a lot since the start of the module. Looking back to the development of the knowledge I will have to take more actors into my understanding and observations of diplomacy than previously.
The one of the best explanations of evolution of public diplomacy I found in the words of Professor Brian Hocking (Loughborough University) - ‘From competition to collaboration’. He states that ‘The network model of public diplomacy rests on a fundamentally different picture of how diplomacy works in the twenty-first century. It recognises the importance of policy networks in managing increasingly complex policy environments through the promotion of communication, dialogue and trust. Globalisation – despite some views to the contrary – has not rendered national governments irrelevant, but it has highlighted their deficiencies in terms of knowledge, flexibility and speed in responding to global problems, and often the limits of their legitimacy in the eyes of those for whom they claim to act. The more diverse membership and non-hierarchical quality of public policy networks promote collaboration and learning, and speed up the acquisition and processing of knowledge.³ In contrast to the assumption (inherent in the hierarchical model) that government controls international policy, the emphasis here is on bringing together government agencies and non-governmental stakeholders. In short, public diplomacy becomes more than a component in the power inventory and suggests a different way of conceptualising the framing and implementation of international policy – and thus of conducting diplomacy in general’ (Foreign and Commonwealth Office ).
Foreign and Commonwealth Office http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/publications-and-documents/publications1/pd-publication/reconfiguring-pd
The one of the best explanations of evolution of public diplomacy I found in the words of Professor Brian Hocking (Loughborough University) - ‘From competition to collaboration’. He states that ‘The network model of public diplomacy rests on a fundamentally different picture of how diplomacy works in the twenty-first century. It recognises the importance of policy networks in managing increasingly complex policy environments through the promotion of communication, dialogue and trust. Globalisation – despite some views to the contrary – has not rendered national governments irrelevant, but it has highlighted their deficiencies in terms of knowledge, flexibility and speed in responding to global problems, and often the limits of their legitimacy in the eyes of those for whom they claim to act. The more diverse membership and non-hierarchical quality of public policy networks promote collaboration and learning, and speed up the acquisition and processing of knowledge.³ In contrast to the assumption (inherent in the hierarchical model) that government controls international policy, the emphasis here is on bringing together government agencies and non-governmental stakeholders. In short, public diplomacy becomes more than a component in the power inventory and suggests a different way of conceptualising the framing and implementation of international policy – and thus of conducting diplomacy in general’ (Foreign and Commonwealth Office ).
Foreign and Commonwealth Office http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/publications-and-documents/publications1/pd-publication/reconfiguring-pd
Wednesday 5 May 2010
Diplomacy and me
There is no doubt, the module concerning new diplomacy has greatly improved my perspective on the subject.
I chose this module without really understanding what was meant by the concept of "new" diplomacy. To me, old or new, diplomacy was the same no matter of the time or the location. I thought of diplomacy as an interaction between two or more people, states, organizations that seek to find a common ground of interest.
However, by assisting the lectures and the seminars, my view on diplomacy certainly has evolved. I have learned that diplomacy, nowadays, is something more than just a mere hypocrite collaboration between different actors.
It does no longer concern a small and powerful elite that decide of the fate of the world but has a much wider dimension since the new diplomacy is the diplomacy of the people. Diplomacy, in the modern intertwined world system, occurs not only through a collaboration of governments or embassies but through us all. We all are representatives of our nations and can make choices going for or against it.
The idea that perhaps has been of most interest to me, is the concept of public diplomacy. I believe that important decisions about the future of the international system can no longer take place through bilateral or even multilateral diplomacy between our governments. The rise of the media allows entire populations to witness the events taking place on our planet. As Joseph Nye stated "information is power" therefore governments no longer have the choice but to include the general population in the decision making process. Most of the states, nowadays, seek to improve their image in the eyes of domestic and foreign audiences. Global awareness is the key to a better future. If populations are aware of the intentions of their own and foreign state, the resulting world order will be more secure. Global awareness is also the only way to fight global issues such as poverty, racial or sexual discrimination or even the omen of the 21st century, terrorism.
Overall, I am very satisfied with the module. Besides learning the historical background of diplomacy taught in the first weeks, I have developed an interest in the concept of public diplomacy, celebrity diplomacy and NGOs which, I am sure, will be of primordial importance in my future career.
Tuesday 4 May 2010
The Evolution of Diplomacy
It is difficult to say what is the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy. Because it is still a matter of debate. However, one may argue that the emergence of non state actors is the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy.
In early days, diplomacy was a matter for elite aristocrats representing states. These state actors used diplomacy as a tool to protect their own national interests. Arguably, it is partly the same reason why diplomacy is used by the state actors. But in later part of twentieth century, there has been enormous growth of Non Governmental Organisations and their numbers are still growing. Many of these organisations are dedicated to solving many different socio-economic problems that states are dealing with too. In addition to finding common causes to deal with, rapid growth in communication technologies have made it easier for state and non state actors to interact. Due to these factors, NGO’s now have growing ability to influence decision making and thus gradually it has made significant change in the nature of diplomacy.
However, the emergence of non state actors may be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy, but there are other significant changes. Many of these changes relate to the process of diplomacy. The old diplomacy can be characterised as secretive, bilateral and matter of high politics. Although some of these features remain to some extent today, the new diplomacy can be characterised as open, multilateral and matters of low politics.
In early days, diplomacy was a matter for elite aristocrats representing states. These state actors used diplomacy as a tool to protect their own national interests. Arguably, it is partly the same reason why diplomacy is used by the state actors. But in later part of twentieth century, there has been enormous growth of Non Governmental Organisations and their numbers are still growing. Many of these organisations are dedicated to solving many different socio-economic problems that states are dealing with too. In addition to finding common causes to deal with, rapid growth in communication technologies have made it easier for state and non state actors to interact. Due to these factors, NGO’s now have growing ability to influence decision making and thus gradually it has made significant change in the nature of diplomacy.
However, the emergence of non state actors may be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy, but there are other significant changes. Many of these changes relate to the process of diplomacy. The old diplomacy can be characterised as secretive, bilateral and matter of high politics. Although some of these features remain to some extent today, the new diplomacy can be characterised as open, multilateral and matters of low politics.
'New Diplomacy' and my own experience
The last 3 months have been a great journey through the world of diplomacy..Before starting this module I have had very high hopes and expectations towards it and I have to be honest, the teaching programme and methods used, all made it an extraordinary experience.
I did not only examine the role of diplomacy in the main theoretical approaches to International Relations but also practised my knowledge through such events like visit to the Swedish Embassy or Ghanian High Commision. By meeting diplomatic officials and been able to ask questions regarding their work, I had an opportunity to expand my knowledge even more.
This module has proved that diplomacy is a very complex process. I was unaware of all complexities and different actors that shape modern diplomacy. We have not only identified diplomacy as a key foreign policy instrument, process of communication and negotiation in world politics but examined the changing nature of diplomacy, with particular emphasis on the interaction of traditional state diplomatic representatives with NGO's. We have explored the activities of different pressure groups, every time trying to raise questions whether they are/ or should be seen as legitimate 'diplomats'..especially when it comes to negotiations concerning global issues like the environment and trade. Looking at Berridge's articles, we found some very passionate arguments about this issue and had a great debate in the class.
Exploring the evolution of diplomacy, we looked at historically different stages in the development of modern diplomacy, distinguishing terms like 'traditional' and 'new' diplomacy. We looked at historical frames of diplomacy and how it evolved once originated in ancient Greece. Reading Hamilon and Langhorne, we 'took' it to fifteenth century Italy, when first permanent embassies were established and diplomatic agents acting on behalf of of their states became institutionalized and professionalized. All these approaches were structured to influence our thinking and to move from general to specific meanings of the term diplomacy. We have learnt that there are many types of diplomatic practice, that diplomacy can be bilateral, multilateral..and above all, we have discovered that the changing interests of states and the whole process of globalization makes it a real phenomenon
I did not only examine the role of diplomacy in the main theoretical approaches to International Relations but also practised my knowledge through such events like visit to the Swedish Embassy or Ghanian High Commision. By meeting diplomatic officials and been able to ask questions regarding their work, I had an opportunity to expand my knowledge even more.
This module has proved that diplomacy is a very complex process. I was unaware of all complexities and different actors that shape modern diplomacy. We have not only identified diplomacy as a key foreign policy instrument, process of communication and negotiation in world politics but examined the changing nature of diplomacy, with particular emphasis on the interaction of traditional state diplomatic representatives with NGO's. We have explored the activities of different pressure groups, every time trying to raise questions whether they are/ or should be seen as legitimate 'diplomats'..especially when it comes to negotiations concerning global issues like the environment and trade. Looking at Berridge's articles, we found some very passionate arguments about this issue and had a great debate in the class.
Exploring the evolution of diplomacy, we looked at historically different stages in the development of modern diplomacy, distinguishing terms like 'traditional' and 'new' diplomacy. We looked at historical frames of diplomacy and how it evolved once originated in ancient Greece. Reading Hamilon and Langhorne, we 'took' it to fifteenth century Italy, when first permanent embassies were established and diplomatic agents acting on behalf of of their states became institutionalized and professionalized. All these approaches were structured to influence our thinking and to move from general to specific meanings of the term diplomacy. We have learnt that there are many types of diplomatic practice, that diplomacy can be bilateral, multilateral..and above all, we have discovered that the changing interests of states and the whole process of globalization makes it a real phenomenon
Monday 3 May 2010
Whaling and NGOs II
The BLOG about whaling posted by Sophie made me curious and I wanted to do more research on the issue as it has been around for a while. Nevertheless we keep hearing updates regarding conflict between anti-whaling protesters and Japan. So I wanted to understand the depth of the problem. I do not want to take either side as this issue is a very controversial one. But we have to notice that both the Japanese authorities and anti-whaling protesters are acting under regulations of international agreements and Laws. As Sophie (2010, Feb) mentioned earlier. "The UN World Charter for Nature, section 21, empowers any nongovernmental organisation or individual to uphold international conservation law in areas beyond national jurisdiction and specifically on the high seas."(Monday, 22 February 2010 Whaling in Antarctica, The Sea Shepherd organisation are a group of anti whaling). This extraction does empowers Greenpeace and other NGOs united under the name of WHALEWATCH (40 NGOs) to try confront Japanese whalers in order to affect their abilities to hunt whales. The fact that international criminal laws in international waters are difficult to regulate does allow anti-whaling activists to assault and attack private Japanese Boats (Which are operating under the Institute of Cetacean Research) and usually allow to remain legally unchallenged by Japanese or international authorities. And Japanese authorities state that International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) Article VIII of the ICRW clearly states that: ‘…any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention…’. Both sides do have a strong argument and as long as Japan is acting within legal guidelines no one will be able to stop them. On the other hand it is claimed that Japanese whaling is based on scientific research. If some samples of whale meat are taken in the name of study and the rest of the whale would be thrown to rot in the pit rather than sold to Japanese consumers or restaurants? Would that be reasonable and justified by anti-whaling activists? The main argument arises within the issue of brutality against the animal and animal rights. No one seem to care what happens to the whale after the catch or how it affects the research. Similar tensions were raised in Great Britain when political debate regarding ban on fox hunting attracted attention of many activists. Any image of animal cruelty will raise many negative protests but any kind of those protests have to be justified and reasonable. The extreme actions by NGOs are attracting worldwide attention but are powerless unless the member states of International Whaling Commission (IWC) take action to extract sections of international agreements that allow countries like Japan to continue whaling. I personally think the actions of radical anti whaling protesters possess some amount of unreasonable assaults and criminal damage towards Japanese ships and crews. Some might disagree to the actions of Japanese, but even if Japanese are engaged in unreasonable whaling within the laws no NGO should be above the international criminal law. Maybe NGOs should direct their efforts in more reasonable anti whaling law making based on research rather than dangerous physical actions against the whaling ships crews. And this might result in NGO image damaging:
The head of ‘Sea Shepherd’ Paul Watson. Japan issued an arrest warrant due to his actions. But he insists that “As long as we are chasing them, they aren't killing whales”.
In 2008 two members of Japanese Greenpeace movement (Junichi Sato, 31, and Toru Suzuki, 41) were arrested by Japanese authorities for presenting the stolen whale meat as an evidence. the question is whether he was arrested for disclosing the truth and whether Japanese authorities need that truth. The act of theft took place first as he had to obtain the evidence, therefore the criminal element will always attract more negativity.
Friday 30 April 2010
My understanding of diplomacy today
My perception of diplomacy has changed a lot since the beginning of the course. At the outset I didn’t know much about the topic. I looked at diplomacy merely as the interstate negotiations and the tool for the peaceful conduct of international relations.
Therefore, the module developed significantly my knowledge. It showed the evolution of diplomatic practice- a complex issue as it is difficult to even indicate with certainty when exactly diplomacy has started. It presented different phases in diplomacy- the very beginnings of the modern diplomacy back in Renaissance Italy where institution of permanent embassies emerged; its further development until the twentieth century, when diplomacy massively expanded, many new state and non-state actors have ‘joined in’ increasing numbers and types of diplomatic links. Diplomacy has changed its nature- it is no more just about bilateral negotiations between two states, but now, particularly in the twentieth century, the role of multilateral or conference diplomacy has been constantly growing. Additionally, the twentieth century have witnessed many more developments and innovations in diplomacy. The growing importance of various NGOs in diplomacy can be deemed as a positive development, on the other hand, however, there has been constant and gradual decrease in importance carried by classic institution of diplomacy, and the role of ambassador has been also undermined, as currently diplomacy is often conducted by politicians.
Therefore, the module developed significantly my knowledge. It showed the evolution of diplomatic practice- a complex issue as it is difficult to even indicate with certainty when exactly diplomacy has started. It presented different phases in diplomacy- the very beginnings of the modern diplomacy back in Renaissance Italy where institution of permanent embassies emerged; its further development until the twentieth century, when diplomacy massively expanded, many new state and non-state actors have ‘joined in’ increasing numbers and types of diplomatic links. Diplomacy has changed its nature- it is no more just about bilateral negotiations between two states, but now, particularly in the twentieth century, the role of multilateral or conference diplomacy has been constantly growing. Additionally, the twentieth century have witnessed many more developments and innovations in diplomacy. The growing importance of various NGOs in diplomacy can be deemed as a positive development, on the other hand, however, there has been constant and gradual decrease in importance carried by classic institution of diplomacy, and the role of ambassador has been also undermined, as currently diplomacy is often conducted by politicians.
My Opinion on Today's Diplomacy
Diplomacy plays very significant role in the contemporary world of politics. It can be force for good by creating channel of communication among conflicting sides as well as helping to establish, innovate and foster global peace and security. I always believed that diplomacy is function sole for foreign office and its representative. However, since I started this module, 'the New Diplomacy', I discover that it goes fur deeper beyond the surface. Diplomacy involves by non state actors such as NGOs and it also has important role for the environment, trade and crisis.
The new diplomacy has given me the opportunity to explore this subject further. I have learned that diplomacy facilitates channel of communication among heads of states and non state politics in contemporary world of politics. Without communication, there would not be any international system as there will not be any interaction among states and non state actors. I have also learned the transformation of diplomacy from old to new, bilateral to multilateral and from secrecy to more open and honest.
The negotiation of agreements is plays crual role for enhancing relationships and achieving mutual benefits, thus diplomacy facilitates states actor to interact with minimum frication and tension.
In my opinion, the most interesting thing that I have learned in this module is the growing significant role of NGOs in diplomatic circle which I have underestimated in the past. At the sometime, there has been a decree in important of one traditional diplomacy core aspects; role of ambassador has been undermined.
The new diplomacy has given me the opportunity to explore this subject further. I have learned that diplomacy facilitates channel of communication among heads of states and non state politics in contemporary world of politics. Without communication, there would not be any international system as there will not be any interaction among states and non state actors. I have also learned the transformation of diplomacy from old to new, bilateral to multilateral and from secrecy to more open and honest.
The negotiation of agreements is plays crual role for enhancing relationships and achieving mutual benefits, thus diplomacy facilitates states actor to interact with minimum frication and tension.
In my opinion, the most interesting thing that I have learned in this module is the growing significant role of NGOs in diplomatic circle which I have underestimated in the past. At the sometime, there has been a decree in important of one traditional diplomacy core aspects; role of ambassador has been undermined.
New Diplomacy module has enlightened my knowledge and understanding of diplomacy today
Diplomacy plays an extremely important role in world politics. An effective diplomacy can help to establish and maintain international peace and security. My opinion about this crucial role of diplomacy in the world politics has not changed the since of New Diplomacy module. However my opinion, about what diplomacy is, has been changed since the start of this module.
I used to think that when the heads of states interact with one another, these interactions are regarded as diplomatic activities. But New Diplomacy module has influenced my thinking. It can be argued that politicians may not be diplomats. Distinctions can be drawn between politicians and diplomats. Unlike old diplomacy, new diplomacy tends to be low politics rather than high politics.
The module has greatly enhanced my knowledge of this subject. I have learned about the history of diplomacy, its different forms and various ongoing debates. One of the interesting things I learned about diplomacy is its transformation or transition from old to new.
Perhaps most unexpected discovery about diplomacy is the role of some NGO’s in diplomatic activities. Diplomacy in my opinion was beyond the reach of NGO’s. But I was surprised to learn that in multilateral diplomacy, sometimes NGO’s have role too. These knowledge and understanding of diplomacy has made me more aware of NGO’s important role in diplomacy today.
I used to think that when the heads of states interact with one another, these interactions are regarded as diplomatic activities. But New Diplomacy module has influenced my thinking. It can be argued that politicians may not be diplomats. Distinctions can be drawn between politicians and diplomats. Unlike old diplomacy, new diplomacy tends to be low politics rather than high politics.
The module has greatly enhanced my knowledge of this subject. I have learned about the history of diplomacy, its different forms and various ongoing debates. One of the interesting things I learned about diplomacy is its transformation or transition from old to new.
Perhaps most unexpected discovery about diplomacy is the role of some NGO’s in diplomatic activities. Diplomacy in my opinion was beyond the reach of NGO’s. But I was surprised to learn that in multilateral diplomacy, sometimes NGO’s have role too. These knowledge and understanding of diplomacy has made me more aware of NGO’s important role in diplomacy today.
Thursday 29 April 2010
Efficiency of the new diplomacy:
The new diplomacy has brought about cooperation between NGOs and multilateral cooperation due to the impact of globalisation which has made trade, investment, travel and information technology much closer to each other. Another important aspect of the new diplomacy is that international law has come into force compared to the 19th and 20th century whereby it was limited to issues such as piracy, wartime embargoes, rights of diplomats which was all about states thus through multilateralism, states have come into agreement through the UN and the EU whereby international law has been put into place and of which states have to abide by it especially when it comes to human rights (Katz, E. Feb.10, 2006).
With the advance of new technology, new diplomacy has made it easy for information to bypass resident ambassadors in a way that coverage such as the media can transfer messages. Example CNN coverage of the Gulf war (Berridge, G.R. 2005:119-120). New diplomacy has also shaped the importance of smaller poor states in a way that they do lack technology due to financial hardships and thus by states coming together through conferences, these countries can easily express their cases like in the UN and also get help in specific fields where they need expertise, for instance when it comes to trade tariffs (Monteiro, A. 29th March 1995).
Last point to make is that it has made travel and work for foreign secretaries much easier in that they can move from one place to another negotiating directly with foreign missions in which they are respected just like the resident ambassador (Taylor, pp. 97-98, 106, 181) and also a leader can send his message directly to a foreign land with the use of modern technology just like Barrack Obama did during his address to the Iranian people.
Berridge, G.R. (2005), Diplomacy: theory and Practice, 3rd edition, New York: Palgrave Houndmills, Basingstoke.
Katz, E. (2006), Business-NGO Alliance marks “New Diplomacy,” Pell says. Retrieved on 26/04/2010. From: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2006-spr/pell.htm
Monteiro, A. (1995), multilateral diplomacy: diplomacy in transition. Retrieved: 05/04/2010. From: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1990_1999/1998/12/MULTILATERAL%20DIPOMACY%20-%2029-Mar-95
With the advance of new technology, new diplomacy has made it easy for information to bypass resident ambassadors in a way that coverage such as the media can transfer messages. Example CNN coverage of the Gulf war (Berridge, G.R. 2005:119-120). New diplomacy has also shaped the importance of smaller poor states in a way that they do lack technology due to financial hardships and thus by states coming together through conferences, these countries can easily express their cases like in the UN and also get help in specific fields where they need expertise, for instance when it comes to trade tariffs (Monteiro, A. 29th March 1995).
Last point to make is that it has made travel and work for foreign secretaries much easier in that they can move from one place to another negotiating directly with foreign missions in which they are respected just like the resident ambassador (Taylor, pp. 97-98, 106, 181) and also a leader can send his message directly to a foreign land with the use of modern technology just like Barrack Obama did during his address to the Iranian people.
Berridge, G.R. (2005), Diplomacy: theory and Practice, 3rd edition, New York: Palgrave Houndmills, Basingstoke.
Katz, E. (2006), Business-NGO Alliance marks “New Diplomacy,” Pell says. Retrieved on 26/04/2010. From: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2006-spr/pell.htm
Monteiro, A. (1995), multilateral diplomacy: diplomacy in transition. Retrieved: 05/04/2010. From: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1990_1999/1998/12/MULTILATERAL%20DIPOMACY%20-%2029-Mar-95
Importance of public diplomacy in the contemporary world:
In the present contemporary world with the spread of democracy has created a new environment in the international system to win hearts and minds of people by governments. This is what public diplomacy does by trying to influence foreign nationals and the public with values, policies and actions of their governments to be supported. Public diplomacy can be defined as the efforts of one nation to influence public or elites of the next nation for the purpose of using foreign policy to its target. Governments always attempt to communicate with foreign public to export their ideas, its institutions and culture, as well as national goals and current policies.
Public diplomacy looks at promoting its culture for long term aims while short-term when it comes to current foreign policies and can also be looked at as propaganda for a nation state by improving its image abroad which will be favourable to the state. The importance of foreign public diplomacy is that it is influenced by soft power rather than use of force or hard power and has brought dependency of citizens on their governments and the local press for information on foreign events and increased potential targets for direct communication of diplomatic messages.
Another important point is that distribution of information around the globe is not restricted due to new technology that can transmit messages around the world in seconds like with fighting terrorism in an age of global real-time television and the internet. Public diplomacy also serves both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy in the sense that they are intended for national interest like in the quest of investment, promotion of trade, and international tourism which is also referred to as branding and also creates cooperation and interaction. Example can be seen in the Canadian and Norwegian experience with the Ottawa process on landmines which shows how collaboration between the domestic and international policy arenas and the public and private sphere (Smith, P.H. Public diplomacy).
Smith, P.H. Public diplomacy, by Minister-Counsellor for Public Affairs, U.S. Embassy, London. Retrieved on 26/04/2010. From: http://www.diplomact.edu/books/mdiplomacy-book/smith/p.h.%20smith.htm
Public diplomacy looks at promoting its culture for long term aims while short-term when it comes to current foreign policies and can also be looked at as propaganda for a nation state by improving its image abroad which will be favourable to the state. The importance of foreign public diplomacy is that it is influenced by soft power rather than use of force or hard power and has brought dependency of citizens on their governments and the local press for information on foreign events and increased potential targets for direct communication of diplomatic messages.
Another important point is that distribution of information around the globe is not restricted due to new technology that can transmit messages around the world in seconds like with fighting terrorism in an age of global real-time television and the internet. Public diplomacy also serves both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy in the sense that they are intended for national interest like in the quest of investment, promotion of trade, and international tourism which is also referred to as branding and also creates cooperation and interaction. Example can be seen in the Canadian and Norwegian experience with the Ottawa process on landmines which shows how collaboration between the domestic and international policy arenas and the public and private sphere (Smith, P.H. Public diplomacy).
Smith, P.H. Public diplomacy, by Minister-Counsellor for Public Affairs, U.S. Embassy, London. Retrieved on 26/04/2010. From: http://www.diplomact.edu/books/mdiplomacy-book/smith/p.h.%20smith.htm
Relevance of bilateral diplomacy in contemporary world:
Bilateral diplomacy is still relevant in the contemporary world in that usually when negotiations take place, it is much easier on a face to face basis whereby leaders do come together (bilaterally) and discuss issues of importance. Because of this, we find out that dialogue can be met because of physical contact and sign language which builds more trust amongst people. In bilateral diplomacy, missions are usually based abroad thus an ambassador or resident mission is well informed to the local environment such as language and culture of which he/she can easily integrate into that society and build trust among the locals (Berridge, G.R. 2005:121-122).
Another importance of bilateral diplomacy is that it does have first hand information. This is an important factor in that by having a resident mission, mutual relationship is built and at the same time the geopolitical factor arises in that the ambassador will be well informed and have good knowledge about the culture, the people and the day to day activities of that country compared to a foreign secretary who is so mobile and has loads of assignments at his disposal with limited time to get to know about a particular place or area.
Berridge, G.R. (2005), Diplomacy: theory and Practice, 3rd edition, New York: Palgrave Houndmills, Basingstoke.
Another importance of bilateral diplomacy is that it does have first hand information. This is an important factor in that by having a resident mission, mutual relationship is built and at the same time the geopolitical factor arises in that the ambassador will be well informed and have good knowledge about the culture, the people and the day to day activities of that country compared to a foreign secretary who is so mobile and has loads of assignments at his disposal with limited time to get to know about a particular place or area.
Berridge, G.R. (2005), Diplomacy: theory and Practice, 3rd edition, New York: Palgrave Houndmills, Basingstoke.
What I've Discovered About Diplomacy
The art of representation, communication and negotiation for states to work together and come away feeling as though they have gained in the nations interest. My understanding of diplomacy has changed as I've learnt a lot about the conduct and history of diplomacy over the last few months.
I was unaware of all the complexities involved in diplomacy when I first started. Since then I've learnt that there are many types of diplomatic practice that takes place, bilateral, multilateral and particularly interesting the use of public diplomacy. Historians differ on the origins of diplomacy, ranging from the Bronze Age to Renaissance Italy, and the French revolution was a period of big transition in diplomacy which much of modern day diplomacy is associated with. Diplomacy and its practices evolved over this period from nuncios to procurators with their envoys, to missions and the modern day embassy.
Diplomacy is the crucial tool for state representation, communication and negotiation. To begin with I didn't realise the vast amounts of issues covered by diplomats covering the many realms of world politics from national security to trade and development, and the environment. The nature of diplomacy is ever developing as national agendas evolve to incorporate new global issues such as terrorism and climate change. The 20th Century saw the largest transition from the 'old' diplomacy to the 'new' diplomacy where open multilateral negotiations increased dramatically and new multistate agendas rose. However, many bilateral diplomatic negotiations and communications still take place behind closed doors, this was particularly the case during the Cold War and grounds of security.
Diplomats are state representatives acting on behalf of governments to implement national strategies overseas in order to build national security and achieve national goals. Diplomacy is vital for pre-emptive, preventive and preserving (allies) measures.
Since the end of the Cold War, non-state actors have become increasingly involved in diplomatic affairs, especially in areas such as the environment and human rights, in which they specialise, although they are yet to formally sign a treaty without a state. Scholars such as Cohen and Langhorne see this as just another transition in the practice of diplomacy and believe we are reaching a period where non-state actors should be formally recognised as diplomats and granted the same statuses and immunity privileges as professional state diplomats. Whilst others like Berridge argue that the only recognised diplomats should be state diplomats and that no-one else should be accepted as a diplomat.
I have learnt how the rise in information communications technologies and globalisation has led for the need for states to act more transparently with the foreign public using public diplomacy to gain support from foreign states. With increasing media coverage and global awareness in the shrinking 21st century the use of soft power diplomacy tactics is vital to the success of governments in the global arena and this should become more common in the future if states do not wish to isolate themselves.
I was unaware of all the complexities involved in diplomacy when I first started. Since then I've learnt that there are many types of diplomatic practice that takes place, bilateral, multilateral and particularly interesting the use of public diplomacy. Historians differ on the origins of diplomacy, ranging from the Bronze Age to Renaissance Italy, and the French revolution was a period of big transition in diplomacy which much of modern day diplomacy is associated with. Diplomacy and its practices evolved over this period from nuncios to procurators with their envoys, to missions and the modern day embassy.
Diplomacy is the crucial tool for state representation, communication and negotiation. To begin with I didn't realise the vast amounts of issues covered by diplomats covering the many realms of world politics from national security to trade and development, and the environment. The nature of diplomacy is ever developing as national agendas evolve to incorporate new global issues such as terrorism and climate change. The 20th Century saw the largest transition from the 'old' diplomacy to the 'new' diplomacy where open multilateral negotiations increased dramatically and new multistate agendas rose. However, many bilateral diplomatic negotiations and communications still take place behind closed doors, this was particularly the case during the Cold War and grounds of security.
Diplomats are state representatives acting on behalf of governments to implement national strategies overseas in order to build national security and achieve national goals. Diplomacy is vital for pre-emptive, preventive and preserving (allies) measures.
Since the end of the Cold War, non-state actors have become increasingly involved in diplomatic affairs, especially in areas such as the environment and human rights, in which they specialise, although they are yet to formally sign a treaty without a state. Scholars such as Cohen and Langhorne see this as just another transition in the practice of diplomacy and believe we are reaching a period where non-state actors should be formally recognised as diplomats and granted the same statuses and immunity privileges as professional state diplomats. Whilst others like Berridge argue that the only recognised diplomats should be state diplomats and that no-one else should be accepted as a diplomat.
I have learnt how the rise in information communications technologies and globalisation has led for the need for states to act more transparently with the foreign public using public diplomacy to gain support from foreign states. With increasing media coverage and global awareness in the shrinking 21st century the use of soft power diplomacy tactics is vital to the success of governments in the global arena and this should become more common in the future if states do not wish to isolate themselves.
Wednesday 28 April 2010
My understanding of diplomacy today:
My personal opinion about the role of diplomacy has changed in that at first I did not have an idea of how and when diplomacy started and at the same time I understood its definition as peaceful mutual agreement between two or more parties rather than looking at it in a broader sense whereby it does involve states. As per now, diplomacy to me is a political process under which states are interconnected with official relations in the framework of the international system.
My opinion has also changed in that the first impression I did not know the difference between bilateral, multilateral and public diplomacy. I now find this interesting in that negotiations can be carried out collectively through conferences in the EU or the UN and at the same time bilateral when it comes to member states meeting on a one to one basis either before the conference meetings or through resident missions such as resident ambassadors or foreign secretaries.
With the public diplomacy, before I did not know much about it and its now interesting to find out that threw public especially in democratic countries have a voice when it comes to national concern such as the Vietnam War which caused an outcry by the American people to end the war.
Another important aspect is the role of NGOs and IGOs playing part in negotiation especially when it comes to trade and other related issues. They usually represent small, poor countries that have no expertise when it comes to negotiation and at the same time, consulates also play important roles in areas such as visa, tourism and promoting culture for the benefit of their national interest.
The last point I want to make is that with the introduction of technology and communication, it has helped shape the speed at which information can be received either through the media such as TV, phones or internet of which the advanced technology has also helped in cases like Obama’s new year speech to the Iranian people and also use of CNN during the Gulf war.
All in all, my knowledge about the subject has broadened in the sense that I have got to learn how negotiations take place including “secret ones”, why some member states think of reducing or cutting down their foreign missions abroad, shutter diplomats travelling from place to place, resident ambassadors and their diplomatic wives, ceremonial dinners and duties, risks of resident diplomats abroad and lastly the visit to the Ghanaian embassy to mention but a few.
My opinion has also changed in that the first impression I did not know the difference between bilateral, multilateral and public diplomacy. I now find this interesting in that negotiations can be carried out collectively through conferences in the EU or the UN and at the same time bilateral when it comes to member states meeting on a one to one basis either before the conference meetings or through resident missions such as resident ambassadors or foreign secretaries.
With the public diplomacy, before I did not know much about it and its now interesting to find out that threw public especially in democratic countries have a voice when it comes to national concern such as the Vietnam War which caused an outcry by the American people to end the war.
Another important aspect is the role of NGOs and IGOs playing part in negotiation especially when it comes to trade and other related issues. They usually represent small, poor countries that have no expertise when it comes to negotiation and at the same time, consulates also play important roles in areas such as visa, tourism and promoting culture for the benefit of their national interest.
The last point I want to make is that with the introduction of technology and communication, it has helped shape the speed at which information can be received either through the media such as TV, phones or internet of which the advanced technology has also helped in cases like Obama’s new year speech to the Iranian people and also use of CNN during the Gulf war.
All in all, my knowledge about the subject has broadened in the sense that I have got to learn how negotiations take place including “secret ones”, why some member states think of reducing or cutting down their foreign missions abroad, shutter diplomats travelling from place to place, resident ambassadors and their diplomatic wives, ceremonial dinners and duties, risks of resident diplomats abroad and lastly the visit to the Ghanaian embassy to mention but a few.
Friday 23 April 2010
The Foreign Affairs Debate - 2010 Election
Debate on foreign affairs between David Miliband for Labour, William Hague for the Conservatives and Ed Davey for the Lib Dems. They are cross-examined by Andrew Neil, diplomatic Correspondent and BBC Newsnight's Mark Urban. The focus is about the role of Britain in international affairs.
William Hague believes that there is too much interference from the EU legally and politically and he wants to be part of the EU but he does not want the EU to rule Britain. Davy wants to create European super state with full authority, he also in favour to replace the Britain seat in the security council to EU seat, while David mililand wants to engage Europe on mutual benefit bases.
Another interesting point is the strategic role of British forces, the lib dems wants to get rid of Britain’s nuclear trident missiles and Vanguard submarines, they also wants cancel production of 2 aircraft carrier plus euro fighters although that is costing a job losses, it is going to save around £100 billion pound to buy the debate, but isn't that making Britain weaker and more vulnerable specially when more rogue states like Iran and North Korea have nuclear ambition or we don’t know where the Pakistani nuclear is gone end up since it is blearing into civil war. What do you think?
Certainly the labour and the conservative both have agree that it is unwise to Britain to abandon it is nuclear, since the future is uncertain and we can't predict how the world may look like in 30 or 40 year time. But the problem with the labour and the conservative is that they want to spend whole lot of money, about £100BN which they don’t have. I think they are mortgaging the future of this country and they gone leave us debate like Greece where our country will need bail out from elsewhere (e.g. America, France or may be Chine). What do you think?
There a lot of issues where the parties have big difference in their political manifesto, if see anything interesting, lets us share to debate.
To watch the Debate Click on the following link. enjoy.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s61j8/The_Daily_Politics_2010_Election_Debates_The_Foreign_Affairs_Debate/?from=r
William Hague believes that there is too much interference from the EU legally and politically and he wants to be part of the EU but he does not want the EU to rule Britain. Davy wants to create European super state with full authority, he also in favour to replace the Britain seat in the security council to EU seat, while David mililand wants to engage Europe on mutual benefit bases.
Another interesting point is the strategic role of British forces, the lib dems wants to get rid of Britain’s nuclear trident missiles and Vanguard submarines, they also wants cancel production of 2 aircraft carrier plus euro fighters although that is costing a job losses, it is going to save around £100 billion pound to buy the debate, but isn't that making Britain weaker and more vulnerable specially when more rogue states like Iran and North Korea have nuclear ambition or we don’t know where the Pakistani nuclear is gone end up since it is blearing into civil war. What do you think?
Certainly the labour and the conservative both have agree that it is unwise to Britain to abandon it is nuclear, since the future is uncertain and we can't predict how the world may look like in 30 or 40 year time. But the problem with the labour and the conservative is that they want to spend whole lot of money, about £100BN which they don’t have. I think they are mortgaging the future of this country and they gone leave us debate like Greece where our country will need bail out from elsewhere (e.g. America, France or may be Chine). What do you think?
There a lot of issues where the parties have big difference in their political manifesto, if see anything interesting, lets us share to debate.
To watch the Debate Click on the following link. enjoy.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s61j8/The_Daily_Politics_2010_Election_Debates_The_Foreign_Affairs_Debate/?from=r
Thursday 22 April 2010
I see the most important aspect of the new diplomacy being the rise of non-state actors in the international arena and their influence on the diplomatic stage.
The rise of new states, non state actors, information communications technologies ICT and new global agendas, such as climate change, terrorism and the world economy throughout the 20th Century have all had an effect in the international arena. This has led to the involvement of non-state actors and interstate organisations in government work and they have growing influence in global public opinions.
Whereas professional state diplomats have a clear objective of representation specific to territorial states, NGO representatives aren’t bound by state but rather through common goals and shared values(1) such as fighting for human rights or community development. Many scholars disagree on whether non-state actors should become diplomatically recognised in the international arena, for example Berridge strongly argues that only states can and should have diplomatic representatives and that non-state actors can never be diplomats, believing that the system must go back to ‘traditional’ diplomacy before the profession loses legitimacy(2), an opinion that may be justifiable but unlikely to withstand the current surge in non-state power influence, one result of globalisation. Opposing Berridge’s view Cohen believes that NGOs and other non-states entities’ have “revived the medieval right of non-sovereign entities to send and receive envoys, conduct negotiations and conclude agreements”(3) . Richard Langhorne agrees that prior to the 17th Century, and traditional diplomacy, there were many types of diplomats and not just those working on behalf of the state(4), for example, religious groups, cities and sub-state units. He also suggests that as the significant rise in non-state actors is changing the international arena this will increase their diplomatic status in the future and that NGOs and other non-state actors may be given diplomatic representation and immunity statuses(5).
The use of diplomacy for governments in multilateral goals resembles that of non-state actors working together towards their common shared goals and values such as human rights and environmental goals. NGOs sharing common goals and working together can lead to what is known as the ‘snowball’ effect, as happened in Canada with the landmine treaty. NGOs rally together, increasing their influence in policy decision making. For example, prior to the Copenhagen Climate Summit, Greenpeace along with six other NGOs and 47 NGO specialists wrote a proposal treaty which they wanted the world leaders to agree by at the summit(6).
As state agendas, particularly their environmental and human rights agendas increasingly resemble those of NGOs, state actors and non-state actors are progressively working parallel to one another. Polylateralism, a term coined by Geoffrey Wiseman is used to explain the parallel system of communications between state actors and non-state actors in international relations(7).
(1)M Betsill & E Cohen, ‘NGO Diplomacy’, (MIT Press, MA 2008) p2
(2)G. R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 3rd Edition (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005)
(3)R Cohen, ‘Reflections on the New Global Diplomacy’ in J Melissen (ed), Innovation in Diplomatic Practice (Macmillan, 1999)
(4)R. Langhorne, ‘Diplomacy and Statecraft’, (Taylor and Francis Inc. 2005)
(5)R. Langhorne, ‘Diplomacy and Statecraft’, (Taylor and Francis Inc. 2005) p332
(6)‘A Copenhagen Climate Treaty’, Greenpeace Online, 09 June 2009, < http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/ngo-copenhagen-treaty> [Accessed 14 April 2010]
(7)Geoffrey Wiseman “Polylateralism” and New Modes of Global Dialogue
Friday 16 April 2010
Multilateral Diplomacy
The twentieth century has seen a massive increase in multilateral diplomacy and in my opinion this is one of the most significant developments in the contemporary diplomacy. As the number of actors involved in international relations grew and the complexity of issues confronting them multiplied, so the pace and structure of bilateral diplomacy turned out to be ineffective. Multilateral conferences and summits have an ability to improve this situation. They can serve as useful fora for state and increasingly also non-state actors to engage in international politics.
Negotiations on issues related to many areas, in particular those of so-called low politics that emerged in the wake of growing globalisation and interdependence challenged the effectiveness of bilateral diplomacy. Issues like environment or political economy affect larger number of states, therefore, it would be extremely difficult to debate them within the bilateral framework. Hence, multilateral negotiations can be crucial in terms of efficiency and speed of decision-making. This does not apply to all the conferences, or international institutions associating larger numbers of states. Standing multilateral conferences, like for example the UN, which are not time and issue-area limited tend to be less effective, than time-limited conferences called to debate one particular subject.
Globalization and interdependence brought states closer to each other as never before. As more states and non-state actors were getting engaged in the conduct of negotiations, it decreased the old-time levels of secrecy and made negotiations more transparent and opened them to a wider public. This, in turn, is a very positive occurrence.
Sources:
Thursday 15 April 2010
NGO's and new diplomacy
First of all, I must acknowledge the role of public diplomacy in changing the frames of traditional diplomacy by influencing foreign publics and policy implementations around the world. Furthermore, I would like to point out the significant role of NGO's as the most important aspect of the 'new diplomacy' because of their destabilizing and threatening character for the whole process of diplomatic service. When I say 'threatening' I mean the impact of NGO's on state sovereignty.
Modern diplomacy is undertaken by a wide range of actors and this have been among the biggest changes that have taken place in diplomacy since the end of the IIWW. They include economic, environment, humanitarian and criminal interest groups, just to mention a few. The proliferation of non-state actors lead us to question the role of the state and its representatives as primary actors in IR. Do diplomats have the last say over the external actors say? Who is representing who?Power is shifting away from nation-states and in such an atmosphere diplomacy have become less effective and needed..
Modern diplomacy is undertaken by a wide range of actors and this have been among the biggest changes that have taken place in diplomacy since the end of the IIWW. They include economic, environment, humanitarian and criminal interest groups, just to mention a few. The proliferation of non-state actors lead us to question the role of the state and its representatives as primary actors in IR. Do diplomats have the last say over the external actors say? Who is representing who?Power is shifting away from nation-states and in such an atmosphere diplomacy have become less effective and needed..
From cats and dogs to partners.
The main example for this could be the Copenhagen Summit on environmental issues in December 2009.environmental topic was addressed by head of states because it was brought in the agenda by many NGOs that are very much environmentally active (e.g.Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth) or by NGOs which first concern was not the environment but nonetheless, the deterioration of it makes their work less effective and environmental issues have become stronger and certainly paramount for those NGOs as well, because everything is linked to the environment. And most importantly becau
se the first victims of the climate change are the people who are actually protected and represented by those NGOs before governments (e.g. Oxfam, Survival). Thus this is the ‘bringing NGOs concerns to the international agenda’ step. This, in my opinion, is a very positive achievement, and certainly a great change.
Nonetheless, why the Copenhagen Summit did failed and states did not come to any agreement, despite the fact that they were all driven by their self-interest and that they did not want to make any compromise while meeting altogether, I think it might be the fact that there were secret meetings held by the developed countries, letting on a side the poorer countries, those who are demanded to do all the efforts but also suffer the most.
Finally, the most important aspect of the New Diplomacy is the emergence of new actors in the international system and little by little in the negotiation process, especially the NGOs, which, even if they are not always present physically in the discussion, do play their part by taking action and changing, bringing new topics in the international agenda, making governments and NGOs sort of partners.
The Most Significant Aspect of New Diplomacy
One of the key manifestations of the new diplomacy is emergening of organisations outside the state sector. For example, in the United Kingdom there are around 200,000 NGOs. NGO have played an increasingly influential role in world affairs, particularly issues such as climate change, human rights organisations and poverty eradication, etc. NGOs represent civil societies which actively participates in international affairs and influences a policy making process which was not possible before. In the other words, diplomats no longer have the monopoly in carrying out diplomatist task.
Even the most powerful nations are no longer the only significant international actors. bilateral state to state diplomacy has been increasingly supplemented by multilateral form of diplomacy, international organisation, both inter - governmental and nongovernmental organisation have become significant diplomatic actors, with at least a rudimentary diplomatic machinery, they can communicate their interest and deploy their resource to influence the outcome of negotiations. For example, NGO such as human rights watch, their role involves by challenging the states which they consider to carry out human rights abuses
The changing interests of states as international actors and the growing number of non state actors involves changed the nature of the new diplomacy as a process of negotiation. Most obvious, it made diplomacy a more complex activity involving more and different actors. States continue to negotiate bilaterally with each other on a state to state basis, but groups of states typically negotiated multilaterally through the auspices of intergovernmental organisations like United Nations and increasingly with the growing range of nongovernmental organisations which sought to influence inter-state behaviour to achieve their objectives. For example NGOs are pushing for the implementations of the global environmental agreements and are trying to tackle the roots of the problems
Finally, Increasingly NGO scrutinise and critise the performance of governments, and indeed few NGOs will be active in diplomatic field, often monitory, the performance of governments, and international or national organisations. ICG is good example in this area. And for that, I would probably argue that the most important aspects of the new diplomacy are the rise of non state actors such as NGO and intergovernmental organisations in the international system.
Multilateral diplomacy is the most important aspect of new diplomacy
Multilaterall diplomacy can be argued to be the most important aspect of new diplomacy. The outcome of multilateral diplomacy tends to be fair and largely benefitial to many unlike bilateral diplomacy.
Multilateral diplomacy enables actors to deal with common global concerns more effectively. In recent years the success of six party talks on North Korean nuclear issue, leading to Pyongyang's agreement to abandon nuclear weapon program, is argued by many as a shining example of the effectiveness of multilateral diplomacy.
It can be argued that some times multilateral diplomacy may be the only way available to deal with some of the common global concerns. For example, environmental concerns relating to global warming are concerns that need attention of many different actors. There seem to be a concensus that problems of global warming can not be resolved by any single nation.
Perhaps more credible reasons, for arguing multilateral diplomacy to be the most important aspect of new diplomacy, are the increased transparency it provides to the process and the increased legitimacy it provides to the outcome. That is possibley why United Nations is still largely trusted and primarily responsible for ensuring international peace and security.
But is multilateral diplomacy a diplomacy without any faults ? Critiques may highlight some of its limitations. But Multilateral diplomacy that is essentially a 20th century phenomenon, is the most important aspect of new diplomacy with some room for improvement.
Multilateral diplomacy enables actors to deal with common global concerns more effectively. In recent years the success of six party talks on North Korean nuclear issue, leading to Pyongyang's agreement to abandon nuclear weapon program, is argued by many as a shining example of the effectiveness of multilateral diplomacy.
It can be argued that some times multilateral diplomacy may be the only way available to deal with some of the common global concerns. For example, environmental concerns relating to global warming are concerns that need attention of many different actors. There seem to be a concensus that problems of global warming can not be resolved by any single nation.
Perhaps more credible reasons, for arguing multilateral diplomacy to be the most important aspect of new diplomacy, are the increased transparency it provides to the process and the increased legitimacy it provides to the outcome. That is possibley why United Nations is still largely trusted and primarily responsible for ensuring international peace and security.
But is multilateral diplomacy a diplomacy without any faults ? Critiques may highlight some of its limitations. But Multilateral diplomacy that is essentially a 20th century phenomenon, is the most important aspect of new diplomacy with some room for improvement.
New diplomacy or diplomacy of the people
The main contribution of new diplomacy, in my opinion, is that it has brought the diplomatic sector closer to the general population rather than a small elite.
This change has happened because of several reasons, however, in a globalized age symbolized by the evolution of communication through internet and other forms of mass media, people feel closer to each other than ever before and are generally aware of what is happening in other regions of the world.
Diplomacy therefore needed to adapt from its old form adapted to bilateral agreements between states to a new form that could survive in a very interconnected and multilateral world.
Since diplomacy has without a doubt become more accessible to people generally, the most important aspects within new diplomacy would then be people-to-people /government-to-people relations (concept by Jarol Manheim), or public diplomacy.
Because as Nye stated, "information is power" (Nye, 2004:1) and people are globally more and more informed, governments need to give more importance to public relations and improve their image around the globe. Lee argued that "people-to-people dialogues have become more important than communicating between governments because governments, and especially democracies, are frequently obliged to abide by public opinions". http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/pdfs/Stacy_Literature.pdf
Public diplomacy can also be considered as the most important factor within the new diplomacy because it can raise awareness in support of different causes such as terrorism, poverty or environment throughout the world by either states or multilateral organizations.
Many blamed the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on the fact that the foreign policy of the United-States in the 1990's was almost non existing thus sending a false (arrogant and hypocrite) image of the nation to other parts of the world resulting in incomprehension and hatred.
Thus a successful public diplomacy, without falling into propaganda, can avoid conflicts around the globe because of its capacity to inform.
Finally, global issues such as poverty, racial or sexual discrimination and the degradation of the environment can only be fought internationally. Thus, public diplomacy is once again the solution because it touches nations from all around the world and is not limited to state boundaries (see the United Nations Development Programme [http://www.undp.org/]).
For all those reasons, the most important factor of new diplomacy has to be its public diplomacy. In an intertwined international system, problems tend to become global and can only be fought globally which makes public diplomacy its only remedy.
Wednesday 14 April 2010
My personal opinion about the importance of the new diplomacy:
According to my readings, the importance of the new diplomacy is that it does unite nations to come into an understanding negotiating matters of common interest and also at the same time it creates interaction and cooperation between nation states.
With the introduction of new technology, has made communication much easier in that with the use of emails, satellite phones, the media like CNN, and travel in that through these methods, information can easily be communicated to different parties and at the same time due to cheap travel, delegates or foreign ministers can easily travel from one place to the other for negotiation.
The new diplomacy has also made it possible for developing countries to air their views in that these countries might lack embassies or missions and are too poor to afford communicating machineries like the internet thus through conference meetings gives them a chance to negotiate.
Another aspect is that the new diplomacy is that it does involve third parties thus this is important in the sense that when two warring parties fail to come to understanding, the third party will act as an intermediary; example the UN or the EU in conflict solving like in the case of a country that is at war between the government and opposition, the UN or the EU will intervene negotiating on behave of both parties.
The last point I want to make is that the new diplomacy creates skills. In this I mean that personnel working in the foreign office, embassies or consulates are usually trained to represent their countries in particular negotiations like trade, crisis, or security and at the same time, the new diplomacy has created representatives like civil societies that will act on behalf of a particular state to represent in terms of negotiation.
With the introduction of new technology, has made communication much easier in that with the use of emails, satellite phones, the media like CNN, and travel in that through these methods, information can easily be communicated to different parties and at the same time due to cheap travel, delegates or foreign ministers can easily travel from one place to the other for negotiation.
The new diplomacy has also made it possible for developing countries to air their views in that these countries might lack embassies or missions and are too poor to afford communicating machineries like the internet thus through conference meetings gives them a chance to negotiate.
Another aspect is that the new diplomacy is that it does involve third parties thus this is important in the sense that when two warring parties fail to come to understanding, the third party will act as an intermediary; example the UN or the EU in conflict solving like in the case of a country that is at war between the government and opposition, the UN or the EU will intervene negotiating on behave of both parties.
The last point I want to make is that the new diplomacy creates skills. In this I mean that personnel working in the foreign office, embassies or consulates are usually trained to represent their countries in particular negotiations like trade, crisis, or security and at the same time, the new diplomacy has created representatives like civil societies that will act on behalf of a particular state to represent in terms of negotiation.
Saturday 27 March 2010
Public Diplomacy: credibility for effectiveness.
According to the USC Centre on Public Diplomacy at the University of South California (USA), Public Diplomacy (PD) is something that is widely seen as ‘the transparent means by which a sovereign country communicates with publics in other countries aimed at informing and influencing audiences overseas for the purpose of promoting the national interest and advancing its foreign policy goals’ (USC Center on Public Diplomacy).
Different ways are implemented by governments to reach these goals. One of them is student exchange programs. This can be seen as a ‘good way’. Indeed, Leguey-Feilleux sees PD as a synonym for public relation which for him is ‘an extension of the diplomatic mission’ (2009, p.154). On the contrary, Berridge relates public diplomacy to propaganda, which widely and commonly refers to manipulation of public opinion through mass media for political ends (2010, p.179). One example of this could be the activities implemented on PD by the United States after the 9/11 attack.
‘One of the most visible examples of public diplomacy soon after the September 11th attacks was Secretary of State Colin Powell’s appearance on MTV in February 2002, reaching out to, and candidly answering questions from young people around the world about what America represents. MTV at that time reached 375 million households in 63 countries worldwide’ (Ibid.p.11).
According to the French President, the biggest mistake made by Africa and its populations has to do with ‘the African drama’ which is related to the fact that ‘the African man has not entered, penetrated as required, the world History’ and that ‘a population that is in such accordance with the nature, does not have place for innovation, ideas nor progress’. (Heams, 2007). Such address from the French government to the African population might explain why since then, the French government has focused more in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership which involved a lot more the Maghreb region.
--> 'The African man has not sufficiently entered the History'. Henry Guaino.
- Goueset C., ‘La Françafrique de Nicolas Sarkozy, changement… et continuité’, L’Express.fr, February, 25 2010. Available Online : http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/afrique/la-francafrique-de-nicolas-sarkozy-changement-et-continuite_851223.html
Different ways are implemented by governments to reach these goals. One of them is student exchange programs. This can be seen as a ‘good way’. Indeed, Leguey-Feilleux sees PD as a synonym for public relation which for him is ‘an extension of the diplomatic mission’ (2009, p.154). On the contrary, Berridge relates public diplomacy to propaganda, which widely and commonly refers to manipulation of public opinion through mass media for political ends (2010, p.179). One example of this could be the activities implemented on PD by the United States after the 9/11 attack.
According to the 2006 CRS Report for Congress U.S Public Diplomacy: Background and the 9/11 Commission Recommendation, during the time prior to 9/11, Congress focus was on political and military power. As the result of that, the U.S Information Agency (USIA), the primary public diplomatic agency, was abolished in 1999 (CRS, 2006, p.2).
Furthermore, several decisions taken by the Bush administration damaged foreign opinion of the USA in both Arab and Muslim world and among several closest allies. Among other reasons, this is due to US refusal of signing several international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Chemical Weapons Ban (Ibid.).
‘One of the most visible examples of public diplomacy soon after the September 11th attacks was Secretary of State Colin Powell’s appearance on MTV in February 2002, reaching out to, and candidly answering questions from young people around the world about what America represents. MTV at that time reached 375 million households in 63 countries worldwide’ (Ibid.p.11).
Despite this rise of expenditure to do better in regards of public diplomacy activities, the USA does not seem to understand that public diplomacy is not only a ‘monologue’ and is less an intensive campaign. Moreover, in order for US PD to be effective, they need to establish a dialogue and understand other countries point of view/misunderstanding on their foreign policy and image. For instance, as states the CRS Report, despite the fact that in 2004 Egypt was the second larger recipient of US assistance, 85% of Egyptians had an unfavourable view of Americans (Ibid. p,14).
In this case, we can see that the damages caused in the Muslim world by US administration will demand them much more effort if they want to regain their prestige and the trust they seem want to have from the Muslin world.
‘Recent worldwide polls show that the United States government continues to be viewed with scepticism by much of the world, not just among Arab and Muslim populations. When the message isn’t consistent with what people see or experience independently, many assert, public diplomacy is not effective’ (Ibid, p.15).
Public Diplomacy can only be effective if it is credible.
Having said this, we might have found an explanation to Nicolas Sarkozy’s failure in regards of French public diplomacy in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Indeed, in May 2006 when he was the Minister of the Interior, he clearly stated in Bamako (Mali) and Cotonou (Benin) that the Franco-African relationship needed to change: Africa needed better governance, and France will not be a close companion into that path, but just a simpler observer (Goueset, 2010). However, the following day he stated that the French government would support, via development aid, those African countries which defend democracy and fight corruption (Ibid).
Nevertheless, just a year after that, in his controversial speech in the Cheikh Anta Diop Unversity in Dakar (the French government addressing the Malian people), he said that France would support the African continent to go into a path of an ‘African Renaissance’.
First of all, these two foreign policies towards Africa are opposed and secondly, his try of engaging a good public diplomacy activity in Dakar failed by what he said and his presentation, according to critics. The purpose of such speech was to reconsolidate the basis of the relationship between France and Africa. But since he arrived in a white suit, like the colons at the time, and clearly showed during his speech that he misunderstands everything about the African population and its cultural heritage. Indeed, this can be noticed when he talked about the French refusal of ‘repentance’ in regards of colonisation and slave trade, ‘the need for Africa to go back to earth and imagine a future that it will be capable of’ and ‘stop feeling nostalgic of its Golden Age, because such period did not exist in Africa’ (L’express, 2007).
According to the French President, the biggest mistake made by Africa and its populations has to do with ‘the African drama’ which is related to the fact that ‘the African man has not entered, penetrated as required, the world History’ and that ‘a population that is in such accordance with the nature, does not have place for innovation, ideas nor progress’. (Heams, 2007). Such address from the French government to the African population might explain why since then, the French government has focused more in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership which involved a lot more the Maghreb region.
--> 'The African man has not sufficiently entered the History'. Henry Guaino.
As a conclusion on this matter, I would say that public diplomacy can only be effective if it is credible and if it is in line with the country acts, behavior and foreign policy, in which case it would be close to 'public relations'. On the contrary, it would just be propaganda, as argues Berridge.
To read Sarkozy’s speech translation in English: http://marian.typepad.com/marians_blog/2008/04/africa-outside.html
To read it in French: http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais/interventions/2007/juillet/allocution_a_l_universite_de_dakar.79184.html
Bibliography
- Berridge, G.R., Dilplomacy: Theory and Practice, Palgrave Mc Millan, Basingstoke, 2010 (4th ed.)
- CRS Report for Congress, ‘U.S Public Diplomacy: Background and the 9/11 Commission Recommendation’, Updated May, 1 2006. Available Online: http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RL32607.pdf
- L’Express, ‘L’Afrique a sa part de responsabilite dans son malheur’, L’Express.fr, July, 27 2007.
- Goueset C., ‘La Françafrique de Nicolas Sarkozy, changement… et continuité’, L’Express.fr, February, 25 2010. Available Online : http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/afrique/la-francafrique-de-nicolas-sarkozy-changement-et-continuite_851223.html
- Heams, T., ‘”L’Homme africain...”. Le Grand Soir Info, August, 2 2007. Available Online : http://www.legrandsoir.info/L-homme-africain-Retour-sur-le-discours-de-Nicolas-Sarkozy-a.html
- Legueux-Feuilleux, J.R., The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder. 2009
- Mbembe, A., ‘Nicola Sarkozy’s Africa’ Le Messager, August, 1 2007, Available Online : http://www.metamute.org/en/Sarkozys-Dakar-Speech
- USC Center on Public Diplomacy, ‘What is Public Diplomacy’. Available Online: http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index.php/about/what_is_pd/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
