Brian white kicked off the topic by describing diplomacy as “infuriatingly vague” in the study of world politics. My understanding of that is, given the nature of world politics which is complicated and all about the self interest of states, the word diplomacy is somehow deceitful as it implies a position of compromise and negotiations whilst in reality, each side is in it for self-gain whatever that may be. So, White refer to diplomacy as a “tool actors use to achieve their ends and implement their foreign policy”.
He touched upon the media who give reference to diplomacy as e.g. British, American or Arab diplomacy, highlighting what they meant i.e. countries have their own distinct way of conducting their foreign policy as opposed to a common method of conducting diplomacy
He also pointed out that diplomacy is not a new cliché but has been around for centuries. “1st diplomatic document 2500BC b/n two kingdoms”. What Brian White showed in this chapter is how Diplomacy evolved just like everything else. From medieval to traditional or old to new – and how each period had embraced or rejected any change that diplomacy had to face.
It is particularly interesting to know how the structure and process of diplomacy has been since time began. Historically monarchs and aristocrats took the position of being diplomats in a very personalized manner which eventually become “institutionalised and professionalised” allowing embassies and their activities as and extension of their state hence enjoying all the immunity, protection pomp and ceremony as they represent the sovereignty of their state.
Another aspect White raised on the nature of old diplomacy is that it is a bilateral process involving two parties. One of the reasons behind that was secrecy but that was to change as time went. The high light of the new diplomacy began after the Second World War. This is a particularly interesting period as there was a lot of change in world politics. Europe was coming out of a devastating war so a new and urgent diplomacy was needed if they were to prevent another war. Secondly, the decolonialisation of the developing countries and their new found independence meant a new multilateral approach to diplomacy was needed however that was overshadowed by the development of the cold war. This period gave diplomacy a whole new twist; the ideological fight between the two camps, the Soviets and the Americans meant the whole world was divided into one or the other camp. Great powers were too pre-ocupied to see the many tragic events in the world as diplomacy and foreign policy during this period was embroidered around who was on whose side.
When the cold war ended, it was yet another chapter as democracy meant people who were held together by ideology, now want to exercise their right to self governance. This of course saw the disintegration of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Empire with some terrible consequences in places like the former Yogoslavia.
So diplomacy had been a mixture of old and new, often secretive but at times it allows multilateral actions from non governmental organisations and institutions such as the UN- depending on the cause however the main actors of diplomacy remain to be states pursuing their interests.
He touched upon the media who give reference to diplomacy as e.g. British, American or Arab diplomacy, highlighting what they meant i.e. countries have their own distinct way of conducting their foreign policy as opposed to a common method of conducting diplomacy
He also pointed out that diplomacy is not a new cliché but has been around for centuries. “1st diplomatic document 2500BC b/n two kingdoms”. What Brian White showed in this chapter is how Diplomacy evolved just like everything else. From medieval to traditional or old to new – and how each period had embraced or rejected any change that diplomacy had to face.
It is particularly interesting to know how the structure and process of diplomacy has been since time began. Historically monarchs and aristocrats took the position of being diplomats in a very personalized manner which eventually become “institutionalised and professionalised” allowing embassies and their activities as and extension of their state hence enjoying all the immunity, protection pomp and ceremony as they represent the sovereignty of their state.
Another aspect White raised on the nature of old diplomacy is that it is a bilateral process involving two parties. One of the reasons behind that was secrecy but that was to change as time went. The high light of the new diplomacy began after the Second World War. This is a particularly interesting period as there was a lot of change in world politics. Europe was coming out of a devastating war so a new and urgent diplomacy was needed if they were to prevent another war. Secondly, the decolonialisation of the developing countries and their new found independence meant a new multilateral approach to diplomacy was needed however that was overshadowed by the development of the cold war. This period gave diplomacy a whole new twist; the ideological fight between the two camps, the Soviets and the Americans meant the whole world was divided into one or the other camp. Great powers were too pre-ocupied to see the many tragic events in the world as diplomacy and foreign policy during this period was embroidered around who was on whose side.
When the cold war ended, it was yet another chapter as democracy meant people who were held together by ideology, now want to exercise their right to self governance. This of course saw the disintegration of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Empire with some terrible consequences in places like the former Yogoslavia.
So diplomacy had been a mixture of old and new, often secretive but at times it allows multilateral actions from non governmental organisations and institutions such as the UN- depending on the cause however the main actors of diplomacy remain to be states pursuing their interests.
Hirut
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.