Diplomacy as observed in the beginning of the 21st century could without a doubt be considered as radically different from what is used to be in the distant past however the change seems to be found in its means rather than in its end. If one chooses to define diplomacy as an art of leading negotiations between individuals or nations, one would eventually agree that the end (or aim)would be, in most cases, to find an agreement that satisfies as much as possible the interests of the parties involved in the negotiation. In which case, the nature of diplomacy would be the same regardless of the time, location or purpose of the negotiation. In other words, the aim of diplomacy has never changed, it seeks to promote collaboration between individual interests.
However, what has changed over the centuries are the means of diplomacy. It is unnecessary to underline the importance of technological and scientific progress in the area of international relations (globalisation?). This progress has created an intertwined world system in which nation states find it easier to communicate and trade with each other but a lot harder to promote their own national interest since from having to deal with solely their neighbours in old times, they now have to promote their national interest as related to the whole planet (the Cold War is a good illustration of this).
How then, can states find a common agreement in an internationalized system? In my view, modern diplomacy is holding the international system together by maintaining an economical race. Every state is trying to make as much surplus value as they can and are in perpetual competition with other states which has sufficed in maintaining a relatively stable world order since states are too occupied to think about their economic growth to be thinking about making war to each other.
The main issue however, is how will diplomacy be able to deal with issues which are not of primary interest to the concerned states. I am here mainly referring to the issue of environment. The success of environment protection will depend on the ability for nation states to forget their national economic self interest and think about what is profitable for the whole planet.
Organisations such as the United Nations seem to fail in this kind of problem solving since the whole organisation is built around the interest of individual state interests and international treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, destined to protect the environment, are not signed and ratified by all states (precisely the states polluting the most).
New Diplomacy will therefore have to use its new tools (technology, science, etc..) to deal with new international issues that seem worse than ever before.
I find your point about it is the mean of diplomacy that has changed, rather that its end. As you said, countries will always try to find solutions and agreements where both complies both parties. The reason for this certainly is because when we talk about states negotiation, the approach taken is generally very realistic. I think that is also why you talked straight away about states’ economy and them being nowadays more preoccupied by that matter than my making war.
ReplyDeleteBut then, what about wars such as the Iraq War, where it is often argued that the USA declared was and invaded that state to make profit of their petrol? - which is of course closely linked with economy as we all know.
I also agree with you that the environmental challenge that is states are facing nowadays is something new: dealing with something that each state is concerned, wanting it or not. But why separate this from the economy? The environment has become an important subject within economical matters since we talk about ‘sustainable development’, ‘go greener’, and even since some refugees situations are emerging due to environmental damages or consequences (e.g montee des eaux which engloutit certain small islands from the Pacific sea) which will cause soon new immigration and refugee issues to some states, which will certainly right after that will soon talk about security and their own economy...
In my point of view head of governments should understand, maybe along with diplomats or with their help, that the issue of the environment is not something they do not need to deal with because they are in power just for a certain amount of time and therefore they think in a short term, but rather they should look to the environment as something that is paramount to deal with. Indeed, because sooner or later (and most probable sooner than we think) everything will have to do with/will be related to the environment (if it is not already the case)... even states’ own economy...
Thank you for the comment Irina.
ReplyDeleteThe war in Iraq as I see it has/had many purposes. I think everyone is pretty much aware that the war took place supposedly to replace the existing government (the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein). This was the official version after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on the US.
I personally think that the war had other motivations as well such as oil as you said and above all the need for the US to test the power of their military technologies and at the same time show the rest of the planet that they are still the most powerful country in the world. The US are spending huge amounts of money on their military sector and what is the point if they never use it?
Therefore the US is an exception but even so, I was referring more to rich countries going to war with each other. Iraq can hardly be considered as a powerful country as compared to the US, the EU, Japan, China or even Russia.
It is, in my opinion, relevant to separate the economy from the environment simply because to deal with the issues of environment is very expensive. Thus, to deal with those issues goes against the economic interests (or the making of profit) for every state.
The success or failure of a more environment friendly international system will depend on the states' will/capacity to forget their surplus value production.
As citizens we can protect the environment by recycling, use our legs/bycicle instead of cars but unfortunately this does not change much. To see a real change, those efforts need to be made by our governments and for this change to take place there is need for an ecological awareness (which seems not to be the case at the moment considering the votes that the green parties get at the elections in most of the states).
Ok... I guess I understand your point about te environment going against economical profit.
ReplyDeleteIn that case, I will agree with you as well: governments will not do much, because heads of governments have a short-term focus.
Maybe, if governments have made clear that they will not want to do much to improve the enviromental situation, even if there are some events that have made it inevitable (negotiation forums, certain policies implementations), maybe it is actually citizen that can make a change.
I think that it is always the 'bottom-up' system that works better than a policy implementation in order to achieve some change...
I mind sound quite idealistic here... but how cannot we have a hint of utopianism while talking about this... it will be all our marks in like that will be lost if this terrible process of 'environmental detteroriation' continues...
In my point of view, people should be more awre of this, because we can actually make a difference and bring some change. --> when the human-being is in the position of hving the capacity to do something and really wants to do it, he will acheive his goal (might be driven purely by self-interest, but at least everybody might benefit from that! e.g. all the trade unions in France).
Anyway... I know most of people now just do not pay attention to environment with the excuse of feeling more concern about business and economics...
That is what I cannot really understand... even if, as you said, solving environmental problems would need a tremendous amount of money... But what about that amound increasing by the time goes and governments just 'do businness' because it is wat they want...?!
--> Isn't it better to prevent than to cure?!
Hi Michael, in the fourth paragraph of your article "A change in diplomacy?" you made an interesting point about environment and natiaonl interest.
ReplyDeleteHowever, i got an impression that you are arguing environmental degradation does not effect national interest of state. This impression raises question that if no states are effected by environmental degradation than why are we so concerned about it?
It can be argued that although some states may suffer the consequence of environmental degradation more than others, it effects all states. The challenge is not that states have no national interest. It is rather how to find an effective and mutually agreed multilateral solution to environmental problems.