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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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:

G. R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 3rd edition (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), chapter 7

Roberts, I. (ed.) (2009), Satow’s Diplomatic Practice, 6^th edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

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..

From cats and dogs to partners.

The aspect that I find the most important in what we call New Diplomacy is the emergence of the new actors. This includes NGOs and MNCs. But because the MNCs have been working alongside governments since the rise of liberalism in terms of economics, I would say that the most important aspect of the New Diplomacy is actually the rise of NGOs and their ability to have managed to reach the status of government partners. The reason for this I think it is simple: before the rise and victory of liberalism, which certainly has a role to play in the gap widening between poor and rich countries through exploitation, there was no such thing as globalization as we know it since the 1990’s – even if some scholars say that globalization is a long process that started at the time when European empires were enlarging through their thirst for discovery of the New World and get wealth from it. Indeed, before the 1990’s, the means of communication were not that wide as they are today, and as I said before, the gap wealth between rich and poor countries was not as evident as today – or at least people were not that aware of it; this obviously in disputable. But the point is that before the 19^th century, the connection between people of different regions of the world was not as easy as it is since the 1970’s, 1990’s, and even as it is today, twenty, thirty, forty years later. As a result people nowadays are more aware of the disparities and injustice and that liberalisation victory brought new ideas such as human rights and legal justice. Therefore, people that had the capacity and the possibility to do something, started to create organisations to help those who they thought, right or wrong, needed their help. This is how, in my opinion, how the NGOs first really appeared. The reason for them to exist is to help and protect the people from the law, the society they live in, empower those people, and make their lives better, in comparison to governments who put those people in that situation and still let that happen. In other words, most of what people think is that governments are bad – due to corruption, dirty financial arrangements, crimes, and self-interested decisions, while the NGO’s are seen as altruists, way of improving people’s lives and the only ones helping them. Thus, they are in a sort of competing relation: NGOs are demanding and requesting important and significant changes from the government regarding the specific matter which that NGO will feel concern about. And the more NGOs they were, more powerful they got. It is even truer that nowadays governments let NGOs, the ‘other team’, be part of the negotiation process. This is when the characteristic of ‘openness’ in the New Diplomacy comes up. This aspect is also really important, but it is undermined by two things. Firstly, by the fact that as I tried to explain, the openness of the negotiations and conferences came from a need or perhaps an obligation from governments in order to ‘calm’ the NGOs. Actually, I think if a government always acts according to it self-interest, in letting this new and competitor actor enter their round table, that means that there was a reason for that. And for me the motivation for doing such thing is manipulation. Indeed, as the saying goes ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer’. Secondly, the opening aspect of the negotiations is a less significant aspect in New Diplomacy, because other actors are kept apart from private and enclosed states negotiation. This challenges the idea of the New Diplomacy being ‘open’ but it does not change the fact that NGOs are still present, take action and influence governments decisions and bring new points to the international agenda.

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 because 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.

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.

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.