August 1939 - Ribbentrop -Molotov April 2002 - Bush - Blair
Secret Deal on Poland &Czechoslovakia Secret Deal on Iraq
As Jules Cambon says, ' Expression such as Old Diplomacy and New Diplomacy bear no relation to reality'. There is one diplomacy which is continuously evolving and adopting to the changing world. 'While routines, procedures and settings have been modified, the basic principles of diplomacy as the basis for negotiations between nation-states have an enduring validity'. It has been said that the 'old diplomacy' was secretive, focused on high politics , issues of peace and war. But has this really changed? As for me, these issues are are still very much within the wide-modern diplomatic agenda. The only thing is that they exist among other issues like trade agreements, migration, environment policies, so called 'low politics'.. Diplomacy has been more flexible now and it has adopted to the changing circumstances. There is an emhasis on non-state actors and economic stability because the world has changed. The Clausevitzian 'war all against all' is no more as relevant as it was in 19th and 20th century. States are not only focused on securing their borders..' The quest for power' is being exercised on different platforms. Since the Treaty of Wesphalia and the formation of the principles of sovereignty, war is not an easy option. But the battle continues..It crosses the uneven borders of the world map, it is being fought on the grounds of oil platforms in Iraq, Venezuela or Nigeria..Oil Diplomacy among others shapes today's world order...War in Iraq wasn't anything new in the history of international relations..based on the secret deal of Bush- Blair alliance (here compared with Ribbentrop-Molotow deal in 1939) and not pure motives..favoured the great powers interests..
So, the 'old way of doing politics' does exist..Secret deals and negotiations are still the main tools of today's diplomacy because secrecy is seen as the best and safest way of achieving the diplomatic ends. Back channels are of a big importance and this will probably never change..You simply can't play chess and inform your rival of your next move, as you won't win..(Kissinger's famous thoughts on USSR). Furthermore, the recent events, that is the invasion of Iraq, once again proof that there is no such thing like a old/new diplomacy, one exists within the framework of another..
I agree with what you are saying Monika as it is difficult to define and seperate the two forms 'new' and 'old' diplomacy and I agree it is an ever evolving system. Berridge argues that diplomacy only belongs to states and that non-state actors can never be diplomats, but in an era of gloablisation, the increase in non-state actors on the world stage is apparent. For example the charity sector is the fastest growing sector and of the 100 largest economic entitites MNCs account for 51 whilst states account for 49.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Richard Langhorne who opposes Berridges view that diplomacy belongs to states only. Langhorne argues 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 , 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.
As new issues evolve, so too will diplomatic involvement particularly in areas of human rights and climate change where many specialists work out of the government sphere.
I agree that national interests will always be paramount in state diplomacy and if it is in a states interest to work on multilateral interests they will.