Brian White on diplomacy and some seminar comments:

White, in his chapter provides a very useful and cleared picture of diplomacy. He starts with placing diplomacy on to two levels. He believes that diplomacy on a „macro“level is the whole political order in the world. Smaller entities, like states, are the “micro” level.

White guides the reader through the historical development of diplomacy going back to as far as 2500BC (the first diplomatic written document).Italian city states, Ancient Greece both had modern elements in their traditional diplomacy. (Steven’s point from the lecture therefore is proven that new diplomacy is not that new etc.)The main difference between Old and New diplomacy lies in the process and issues. While traditional diplomats dealt with each other in secret ,new diplomacy is much open to a wider „audience“ therefore highly effecting the issue which needed to be dealt with-more people involved, more issues raised.

During the Cold War period the mentioned new diplomacy begun to operate, however a completely new element, nuclear diplomacy was highly shaping the era’s diplomatic relations. Since to avoid a nuclear war was a collective aim, diplomatic relations was slightly limited with a new shape. White believes that although nuclear diplomacy as such is not a new phenomenon; however, it requires new responses. We may notice thorough the chapter that even new diplomacy has its newer forms. Diplomacy has changed after the Cold War with new elements such as non state actors, pressure groups beginning to really mater. Although the tension between the East and West vanished, new problems such as the fragmentation of Yugoslavia or African poverty were placed on the international agenda (and

Later on were seen as a failure of diplomacy) In spite of the fact that there were failed diplomatic actions after the end of the Cold War, the hopes were high towards a successful new approach. The hopes were demolished by 9/11 attacks were diplomacy was impossible to practice by terrorist being stateless.

White in the second half of the chapter is emphasizing on foreign diplomacy and how it is connected to diplomacy. In fact he suggests that diplomacy is an instrument by with foreign policies is implemented. Representation, prestige, negotiation forms, the quantity and the quality of the information provided by permanent embassies are crucial in order to have flourishing diplomatic relations between countries. According to White diplomacy on a micro level is often the same as a specific state’s foreign policy and often impossible to separate the two.

White talks about how traditional diplomacy can not function within an interconnected and technologically advanced society. While traditional diplomacy included only governments, states the current era is much more complex with non state actors which sometimes can be more influential than smaller states. Therefore White lowers the significance of the idea of a state centered diplomacy.

I found the chapter really relevant to the current era. Especially with all the new elements/events recognized within the international society I believe that White made a very good point by lowering the importance of an only state based diplomacy.

I would also like to comment on the seminar B(week 2) group. The discussion was instructive until it got very “undiplomatic” and irrespective of others opinion. However I liked the way the seminar was led. I think it is fair to ask from everyone to have a bit of respect and patience towards the other’s word.