Tuesday 23 February 2010

The Interdependent World & Diplomacy

I think that the most significant change in the twentieth century was the increase in diplomacy resulting directly from growing number of international actors. The 20th century world has become more interdependent. This new era has changed the so-far prevailing picture of the world politics- making it more pluralistic in terms of actors engaged in global interactions, and making those actors, in turn, more dependant on each other. From the neo-liberal point of view, still growing mutual dependence between actors in the international politics should be seen as a positive phenomenon as it creates the world wherein cooperation is a necessary feature. Since now on the actors in world politics were no longer able to cope with the problems on their own, they must have cooperated. The contemporary world has seen the emergence of many international organizations that were created to manage the interdependent system and facilitate cooperation between various actors in the global political arena. The number of member states of the United Nations has tripled since 1945- from 51 original members to 185 in 1997 and the number of international organizations has grown to nearly 6000. Moreover an open trade system resulted in growing number of international economic transactions over the past few decades. Movements of capital, goods and services, people and enterprises across international borders created highly interdependent world with complex web of economic relationships and links. Thus states were compelled to set up diplomatic relations with each other in order to coordinate the international behaviour in economic issue-area. In addition the ways that states were dealing with each other have altered more in the past three decades than over the 350 years since the Peace of Westphalia. Now not only foreign offices of different states have got direct contacts with each other but also other government departments are in touch with their counterparts in other countries.

4 comments:

  1. I do agree with the notion of cooperation, but on my point of view the liberal though by capitalist states has tended to undermind developing nations in a way that they are forced or have no option on an agenda when it comes to diplomatic talks. lets take a case trade embargo, I dont think the outcomes of the talks will be fair but favour the developed power due to influence thus though diplomacy is good, the game has to be mutual and fair for a better world.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do agree with Hubert's point of view that the most significant changes in diplomacy in the 20th century was the increase growing number of international actors. And that it led to the interdependency in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I do agree with your points Hubert. One might add to your ideas, that from a Marxist/Leninist approach, there is now a triple phase of diplomacy between core/core states;periphery/periphery states and core/periphery states. The first category would regroup the Triad+some new developed states whereas the second would regroup competing periphery states trying to become core states and the third one would represent the economic exploitation of periphery states by the core states (cheap labor, raw materials, imposition of unfair external markets, etc...)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Hubert

    you have written incredible fantastic points about ''the most significant change in the 20th century in diplomacy'' and cooperation among fast numbers of international actors. You also made good analysis about the NGOs. But there are some areas that I disagree.

    You have stress that the need for cooperation was result of globalisation and the actors will lose more in conflict then gaining in cooperation (''Since now on the actors in world politics were no longer able to cope with the problems on their own, they must have cooperated''). Some of the non state actors which play remarkable very significant play in international affairs, e.g. green peace, climate campaigners and animal activities and even terrorists tends to pursue their ambition and objectives by trying force state actors, multinational companies, and individual to change their policies and behaviour without seeking their cooperation first. For example, just before the general election on 2005, climate activist man climbed John Prescott house and planed solar panel in protest again government energy policy. Resulting famous quote from John ''Wives and children are not for terrorising''. This kind of activates is telling us that, in international system, cooperation is not necessary to reach your objectives.

    In your last paragraph, economics issue is not sole where cooperation among states can exits. Security is important to be cooperated by states to feel safe. Until more recently US wanted to install anti missile systems in Europe to protect US and its allies from possible strikes from rogue states.

    Regards

    Mohamed

    ReplyDelete