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
Friday, 7 May 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
