Tuesday 31 March 2009
The most important aspects on new diploamcy
Based on the seminar discussions and according to my research I found public diplomacy the only amenable form of new diplomacy which can only have positive aspects if it is carried out responsibly. The most popular example of using public diplomacy tools successfully was the Cold War, where the US did not apply hard power but stick to using influence on foreign publics in order to cooperatively defeat communism. In those times broadcasting, media, positive propaganda-the instruments of public diplomacy- helped towards ending the long battle of ideologies. As we can see public diplomacy is not that new, only the technology which is used in order to make public diplomacy more efficient. In the raising age of technology when the interaction between the public and diplomats is a matter of few seconds by using the internet makes public diplomacy matter more than ever. Although it is a very important sector of today’s world we must not forget that public can be sometimes irrational; therefore the governments are taking them at arm’s length. In order to professionalize the relationship, new diplomacy is increasingly relying on NGO’s and other non state actors. I believe that the reputation of NGO’s is increasing in a positive way (because of their structure and possibly because they are not profit driven etc.) therefore the states are more willing to include them in diplomacy. To comment also on multilateral diplomacy, I believe that states should bare in mind that globalization and the interconnectedness are around making states rely on each other, however some of the traditional diplomacy aspect like representation or traditional embassies should not be abandoned. Building personal relationships, trust, and reputation especially in this impersonal era is remaining to be a very important part of diplomacy, whether it’s public, multilateral or traditional.
Saturday 28 March 2009
The most important aspect of New Diplomacy following the seminars 5 & 7.
In my opinion the most important aspects of the new diplomacy is multilateral diplomacy, where more than two states are involved in negotiations, and the public diplomacy-soft power the citizens as well as the media play a greater role.
Before in the “old diplomacy” non-state actors, such as NGOs, did not make part of the negotiations process, nowadays, with the new diplomacy, the diplomacy agenda has become much richer.
In multilateral diplomacy, the fact that more than two states are involved in a negotiation can facilitate the whole process, for instances, states have different points of view, plus the non-state actors can create pressure in the decision making as well as the media and public opinion.
Issues such as environment and human rights can ”move” a lot of people such as international organizations, in this case Greenpeace and the Amnesty International respectively, and other singular activists and all that can weigh a lot in the final decision.
Also in the multilateral relationships all states are equal when negotiating, there they are all at the same level, there are no powerful and weak states in this situation. However power difference can still exist. While states may have one vote each, the more powerful states usually dominate the weaker states. They can use bilateral aid relations which weaker states to secure their votes, for instance. They also benefit from the exchanging of experiences and information, the more states the better in a sense that the discussion will involve variety of opinions.
However is worth mentioning that multilateral diplomacy can also create more conflicts and tensions between the states involved.
Overall, even if multilateral diplomacy can create awkward situations between states such as in extreme cases with physical assault and the policies changing can be delayed in comparison to bilateral negotiations, on the other hand, it can create more opportunities for other less favourable states, as they will take equal part as the other powerful states in the negotiations, and also it makes possible for the public to demonstrate their opinions, as well as it makes the indirect politics possible.
Before in the “old diplomacy” non-state actors, such as NGOs, did not make part of the negotiations process, nowadays, with the new diplomacy, the diplomacy agenda has become much richer.
In multilateral diplomacy, the fact that more than two states are involved in a negotiation can facilitate the whole process, for instances, states have different points of view, plus the non-state actors can create pressure in the decision making as well as the media and public opinion.
Issues such as environment and human rights can ”move” a lot of people such as international organizations, in this case Greenpeace and the Amnesty International respectively, and other singular activists and all that can weigh a lot in the final decision.
Also in the multilateral relationships all states are equal when negotiating, there they are all at the same level, there are no powerful and weak states in this situation. However power difference can still exist. While states may have one vote each, the more powerful states usually dominate the weaker states. They can use bilateral aid relations which weaker states to secure their votes, for instance. They also benefit from the exchanging of experiences and information, the more states the better in a sense that the discussion will involve variety of opinions.
However is worth mentioning that multilateral diplomacy can also create more conflicts and tensions between the states involved.
Overall, even if multilateral diplomacy can create awkward situations between states such as in extreme cases with physical assault and the policies changing can be delayed in comparison to bilateral negotiations, on the other hand, it can create more opportunities for other less favourable states, as they will take equal part as the other powerful states in the negotiations, and also it makes possible for the public to demonstrate their opinions, as well as it makes the indirect politics possible.
Friday 27 March 2009
The New Diplomacy
The concept of the New diplomacy primarily consists of 'para diplomacy', public diplomacy and multilateral diplomacy. Although they are arguably, equally relevant and interrelated; acting as 'vehicles of transparency' between state operations and the public, their uniqueness is commensurate to their relatative impacts on society.
The displeasure and 'global' protests of the masses registered against the (US/UK versus IRAQ) war in 2003 proved futile. Six years on, we live with the human and financial costs and the utter declining confidence in governments- A glaring example of failed public diplomacy. Eventhough claims of rebuilding Iraq are being preached, the selfish pursuits of 'national interests' are not opaque to the people these governments serve. Inappropriate actions which led to 'this mess' cannot be undone, and lessons learnt may be inadequate as the British public are still in demand of a public enquiry.
The intervention of internatonal NGOs (Amnesty International) however, become relevant in the extremes of war crimes by providing legal representation regarding issues of rape, discrimination and trampled human rights.
Several instances where non state actors have played a major role included celebrity diplomacy; where the record numbers of the public have responded by contributing to raise funds towards HIV/AIDS projects in Africa.(Public health diplomacy)- The money raised in 24hrs by 'Comic Relief'' is undoudtedly unmatched by what departments of health programmes of Countries can do for the same purposes.
The displeasure and 'global' protests of the masses registered against the (US/UK versus IRAQ) war in 2003 proved futile. Six years on, we live with the human and financial costs and the utter declining confidence in governments- A glaring example of failed public diplomacy. Eventhough claims of rebuilding Iraq are being preached, the selfish pursuits of 'national interests' are not opaque to the people these governments serve. Inappropriate actions which led to 'this mess' cannot be undone, and lessons learnt may be inadequate as the British public are still in demand of a public enquiry.
The intervention of internatonal NGOs (Amnesty International) however, become relevant in the extremes of war crimes by providing legal representation regarding issues of rape, discrimination and trampled human rights.
Several instances where non state actors have played a major role included celebrity diplomacy; where the record numbers of the public have responded by contributing to raise funds towards HIV/AIDS projects in Africa.(Public health diplomacy)- The money raised in 24hrs by 'Comic Relief'' is undoudtedly unmatched by what departments of health programmes of Countries can do for the same purposes.
After two decades of the absence of diplomatic relations between the US and Iran the mere organsation of sports between them in the long ran helped to improve relations. The referee was an Iranian-American and though there were tensions in the stadium the Iranians who cheered for the Iranians had come from Europe and America. This kind of relationship which was fostered between the two countries as result of (Sport diplomacy) would have taken them a very long and expensive route to attain.
The practice of bilateral diplomacy though completely unavoidable, is narrow to its achievements on selected matters such as national security. However the NGO diplomacy by far outweighs the its achievents as it constanty aims to improve preserve the very existence humanity-human security.
There is a catlogue of countless acievements of NGOs due to their global audience and massive resources to deal with specific social issues. A common example is their constant feature in UN formal meetings and conferences where they constantly make specialist contributions which has aided the drafting of the childrens act, contributions to poverty and socio-economic factors including immigration.
It is however apparent that non state actors, ranging from individuals to huge international organisations through their actions or operations can reach the very core of social issues that states otherwise may or can not deal with to mobilise maximum communal benefit.
The democratisation of world governance that 'non-state actors' hope for will be truly triumphant in the era where civil society is able to shape foreign policy.Wednesday 25 March 2009
What is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy?
The main difference we can appreciate from the ‘old diplomacy’ transformation to a ‘new diplomacy’ is the way of how politics are based now, firstly no more politics behind ‘close-doors’, an open dialogue between countries, giving place to a new and dynamic ‘public diplomacy’ where politics are now more transparent and where the citizens have a greater role. Secondly the ‘Para-diplomacy’ of non state actors and the rise of the media as a soft power. Thirdly a Multilateral-diplomacy, have completely changed the way diplomacy is conducted. In my opinion these three factors are crucial in today’s diplomacy, and it is difficult to look at it without one. Nevertheless for me, NGOs are the most important aspect in new diplomacy, they have affected not only the way diplomacy is conducted, it also has imposed new rules to the game, and most of the time have been the political decisions-makers for most of the countries. In some cases NGOs such as multinationals corporations had gain equal status and rights as countries have, and used it against countries who opposed them, eroding their sovereignty in an incredible way. They have been playing the role of diplomats so well, that today their impact is crucial in first and third world countries. As an example we just have to look at Shell Oil in Nigeria, ‘Maquiladoras’ in Guatemala, the Roman Catholic Church, Al-Qaeda in USA or what sub Americans-state units had done to controlled and ruled the Canal Zone in Panama. NGOs have immense influence in the international system, participating in the majority of global diplomacy, and even to challenge global rules. However the roles non state actors play and the influence they exert, depend on political, economic, and social context.
Tuesday 24 March 2009
ESSENTIALS OF NEW DIPLOMACY
After the second World War, the need for a new type of diplomacy was advocated for, due to inefficiencies of the old or traditional diplomacy. As to the question, public diplomacy and NGOs, are more interesting to me. First of all, we have to consider what distinct public or new diplomacy from the traditional one. New diplomacy advocated for a more open diplomacy. Public diplomacy as an organ of new diplomacy help we the public to gain access to information’s albeit multilateral or bilateral diplomacy. We as the general public are entitled to the knowledge of outcomes of negotiations that involves our interests. Also, increasingly, public diplomacy is very important in the 21st century due to intense globalization and interdependence. We now live in a world whereby states borders are easily permeable as well as global issues like global warming, starvation, poevrty, that calls for public awareness.
On the other hand, NGOs are increasingly relevant, because they help to foster public interest to some extent. As increasingly known, states are no longer the main actors in international relations, global issues like poverty, environmental issues, are best handled by specialize NGOs, thus, NGOs solicits and advocates for the welfare of the public. What can be gain said, is that, NGOs like Green Peace, help the general public in lobbying state government for the betterment of our planet. This they do through soft power, and with the help of sophisticated technological advancement, like the internet.
However, public diplomacy lack the coercive will, because autocratic rule can ignore pressure from the public thereby continue the old policy of secrecy. Even democratic regimes still engage in secret diplomacy. Consequently, since NGOs are not accountable to the public like democratic regimes do, the questions is, do they really pursue the interest of the public or their interest?
Finally, public diplomacy and the influence of NGO’S on world politics have created a new platform for states to struggle in monopolization and compete with the new global order. What can be said, is that politics or diplomacy remains the same, only with exception of few innovations
On the other hand, NGOs are increasingly relevant, because they help to foster public interest to some extent. As increasingly known, states are no longer the main actors in international relations, global issues like poverty, environmental issues, are best handled by specialize NGOs, thus, NGOs solicits and advocates for the welfare of the public. What can be gain said, is that, NGOs like Green Peace, help the general public in lobbying state government for the betterment of our planet. This they do through soft power, and with the help of sophisticated technological advancement, like the internet.
However, public diplomacy lack the coercive will, because autocratic rule can ignore pressure from the public thereby continue the old policy of secrecy. Even democratic regimes still engage in secret diplomacy. Consequently, since NGOs are not accountable to the public like democratic regimes do, the questions is, do they really pursue the interest of the public or their interest?
Finally, public diplomacy and the influence of NGO’S on world politics have created a new platform for states to struggle in monopolization and compete with the new global order. What can be said, is that politics or diplomacy remains the same, only with exception of few innovations
With reference to the discussions of weeks 5-7, What are the most important aspects of the New Diplomacy?
The idea of New diplomacy is a multi-faceted concept. Three major factures of today’s diplomatic relations that have been discussed over the last few weeks are Public diplomacy, Conference diplomacy and the roles of Non-Governmental organisations in diplomatic circles. Public diplomacy is intrinsically linked to the idea of ‘soft power’ and public relations. Soft power is a term coined in the early 1990’s by Joseph Nye and can be defined as
‘The ability to get what you want through attraction rather then coercion’
The modern diplomatic core must contain elements with the ability to ‘sell’ ideas to the public. With the end of the cold war these ideas have become less ideological in nature and more linked to influencing public opinion about policies, trade and culture. On our recent trip to the Danish Embassy we were given examples of current exhibitions and the courting of elements of the press in an attempt to influence the Danish image abroad. This type of diplomacy has become very important, especially with regard to the increasing globalisation of the world. It may be fair to say that public opinion is now almost as important abroad as it is at home for a country. Two major examples of this have been the recent demonstrations against Israeli involvement in Gaza and those in opposition to anti- Islamic cartoons in Danish paper. These examples show us two important factors in public diplomacy; firstly they act as prove of the globalised world in which we live (neither of these events had a direct impact on the British public yet it was in London that these two demonstrations took place). Secondly that, if either Israel or Denmark wished to raise public opinion of them then it must be done through the use of ‘soft power’. There is no real option for countries to coerce the general public of another country, this must be done through the public orientated, selling of these countries as attractive, ‘decent’ world actors.
Conference Diplomacy is another important element of the New Diplomacy that really finds its roots in the post-Wilsonian age. Jan Melissen of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations attributes the concept of ‘summit’ meetings to Winston Churchill who stated that ‘it is not easy to see how things could be worsened by a parley at the summit’. This statement however has the opposing argument that, just because a politician has been voted to power in a country, that does not mean they have the ability or necessary training to talk on specific issues on behalf of the country.
This level of personal contact at the top has however proved on occasion to be a defining factor in international relations. Former President Ronald Regan famously stated that it was only after personally meeting Gorbachev in Geneva in 1985 that he started to believe an understanding could be reached with the Soviet Union. It is also important to note that multi-lateral meetings between countries are virtually the only way that conversation about issues of importance can be carried out between the representatives of 2 or more countries in real-time. It may be argued that placing prominent leaders in a situation where they are encouraged to discuss certain issues in the here and now encourages them to come to and agreement quickly and rationally. As Lloyd George stated in the early 20th century ‘ If you want to settle a thing, you see your opponent and talk it over. The last thing you do is write him a letter.’
The role of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) in modern diplomacy is a relatively modern concept, and according to some is one that is set to rise. According to Riordan the modern age has seen a redefinition of several key political concepts. National and International crisis for example are increasingly being seen to include famine, disease, migration and economic issues as well as more traditional crisis situations (most notably armed conflict). It may be viewed as a natural progression therefore that specialist groups are increasingly courted by certain world governments for their specific knowledge on issues. NGO’s and specialists may also have a better reputation then government officials and therefore may well be more trusted by another country or culture. For example, Dr Daud Abdullah and Dr Musharraf Hussain of the Muslim Council of Great Britain flew to Iraq in 2004 in an attempt to gain the release of the British hostage Ken Bigley. Although they were unsuccessful it can be argued that they were in a better position to put pressure on the hostage takers then the disliked and un-trusted British Government.
There is however an obvious argument against the use of NGO’s in the world of diplomacy. Most obviously that they are mostly single issue groups who cannot be held accountable in the same way that governments are. It could also be argued that bringing NGO’s into the diplomatic arena only serves to bring yet more self-serving and conflicting views to the discussion table, thus prolonging and convoluting the act of diplomacy.
In Conclusion I would argue that the three aforementioned facets of New Diplomacy must be equally and carefully balanced in there use to produce a well rounded and secure diplomatic ability, one that will allow a country to function internationally on many levels.
The Dalai Lama barred from attending conference in South Africa
Thought you might find this article interesting....(just click on the title)
The Most important aspect of New Diplomacy
The most important aspect of New Diplomacy is that it is new especially, since the end of the cold war. It does and practice new forms of diplomacy. Non-governmental organisations, environmentalist, public opinion, news media, even celebrities seem to have an effect in a way diplomacy is conducted. Although I believe Bilateral Diplomacy remain to be a defining factor of the international system, gone are the days where by political issues are dealt by state representatives behind closed doors and result is delivered. Today, issues are trashed out among the different groups, in full glare of the media and round the clock some of whom even have acquired a seat at the UN.
New Diplomacy’s main feature is inclusiveness. State less nations, Poverty reduction, the environment, war, organised crime, security, globalisation etc. all these issues have victims as well as beneficiaries. In New Diplomacy, their effect is discussed and brought to the attention of the International Affairs by their respective representatives. As well as increasing awareness among the general public and create huge debate, New Diplomacy, like many other things willingly or forcefully had to evolve, into a new era-public opinion matters and politicians are well aware of that.
Hirut
The most important aspect of New Diplomacy is that it is new especially, since the end of the cold war. It does and practice new forms of diplomacy. Non-governmental organisations, environmentalist, public opinion, news media, even celebrities seem to have an effect in a way diplomacy is conducted. Although I believe Bilateral Diplomacy remain to be a defining factor of the international system, gone are the days where by political issues are dealt by state representatives behind closed doors and result is delivered. Today, issues are trashed out among the different groups, in full glare of the media and round the clock some of whom even have acquired a seat at the UN.
New Diplomacy’s main feature is inclusiveness. State less nations, Poverty reduction, the environment, war, organised crime, security, globalisation etc. all these issues have victims as well as beneficiaries. In New Diplomacy, their effect is discussed and brought to the attention of the International Affairs by their respective representatives. As well as increasing awareness among the general public and create huge debate, New Diplomacy, like many other things willingly or forcefully had to evolve, into a new era-public opinion matters and politicians are well aware of that.
Hirut
Monday 23 March 2009
The 3-wheeled car
this week, we have been asked to consider which is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy based on the discussions in seminars 5 -7. The main topics of these seminars were: public diplomacy, NGO's and their (questionable) role and (questionable) legitimacy and conference diplomacy.
the above 3 aspects of new diplomacy have taught me several things:
1. Soft power/propaganda is indeed a powerful force to reckon with as demonstrated previously in the world wars, the cold war, and the present day 'Americanization' blame-game.
2. NGO's such as medecins sans frontiers (doctors without borders) might be more useful in certain circumstances than any other form of state-led diplomacy, especially if outbreaks of a curable disease are concerned.
3. Conference diplomacy is another aspect that is highly useful if and when it is relevant to the circumstances in which it is used. for example, its interesting to note how the APEC (Asia-pacific economic cooperation) meeting held on the 9th of December 1999 held an additional meeting regarding Indonesia's failure to handle the situation in East Timor at the time, and although they failed to come to any unified agreement, it is still thought that just the fact that 75% of the worlds' GDP was sat around a table discussing an event like that placed a generous amount of pressure on Indonesia to attempt to resolve the problem more efficiently.
However, i believe that the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is not particularly any of the above, or a combination of all three, but rather the fact that they all work in conjunction with, and based on, the old diplomacy.
Therefore the most important aspect is not any particular part of the make up of new diplomacy, but rather its versatility.
Much like a 3-wheeled car, the 4th wheel of the new diplomacy and its effectiveness is everything that old diplomacy entails: both through the interactions that have been successful, and the interactions that haven't. the lessons we have learned, and those we have failed to. The rapid interactions, and the non-existent ones. The fact that we are still dealing with people, between people, for people.
If we were to take each aspect detailed from weeks 5 to 7 individually, we would find that each of the aspects has particular advantages and disadvantages, and that they are all aspects that are as important as the circumstance(s) may call for its relevance. Soft power cannot be used in every situation, as neither NGO's or IGO's for that matter can provide rapid-reaction forces for every latent conflict, as conference diplomacy might not be the most relevant form of diplomacy available when dealing with a problem that is strictly bilateral to begin with.
However, this is not an issue that is exclusive to the new diplomacy, old diplomacy also has this separation of useful aspects. After all, one has to be sufficiently knowledgeable to distinguish between a situation that calls for secret diplomacy and a situation that calls for open-channel diplomacy.
Evaluating the new diplomacy in terms of its individual components that may or may not make up this questionable theory (for Berridge denies its existence) does not, in my opinion, provide a sufficiently equal ground on which to evaluate its efficiency (or its importance for that matter). The fact that it has managed to integrate itself into what was originally considered to be a more state-centric version of diplomacy to turn into a seamless fabric of possible manners of diplomatic interaction is taking the turn from attempting to drive a car with a busted tire to a brand-spanking-new Porsche.
the above 3 aspects of new diplomacy have taught me several things:
1. Soft power/propaganda is indeed a powerful force to reckon with as demonstrated previously in the world wars, the cold war, and the present day 'Americanization' blame-game.
2. NGO's such as medecins sans frontiers (doctors without borders) might be more useful in certain circumstances than any other form of state-led diplomacy, especially if outbreaks of a curable disease are concerned.
3. Conference diplomacy is another aspect that is highly useful if and when it is relevant to the circumstances in which it is used. for example, its interesting to note how the APEC (Asia-pacific economic cooperation) meeting held on the 9th of December 1999 held an additional meeting regarding Indonesia's failure to handle the situation in East Timor at the time, and although they failed to come to any unified agreement, it is still thought that just the fact that 75% of the worlds' GDP was sat around a table discussing an event like that placed a generous amount of pressure on Indonesia to attempt to resolve the problem more efficiently.
However, i believe that the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is not particularly any of the above, or a combination of all three, but rather the fact that they all work in conjunction with, and based on, the old diplomacy.
Therefore the most important aspect is not any particular part of the make up of new diplomacy, but rather its versatility.
Much like a 3-wheeled car, the 4th wheel of the new diplomacy and its effectiveness is everything that old diplomacy entails: both through the interactions that have been successful, and the interactions that haven't. the lessons we have learned, and those we have failed to. The rapid interactions, and the non-existent ones. The fact that we are still dealing with people, between people, for people.
If we were to take each aspect detailed from weeks 5 to 7 individually, we would find that each of the aspects has particular advantages and disadvantages, and that they are all aspects that are as important as the circumstance(s) may call for its relevance. Soft power cannot be used in every situation, as neither NGO's or IGO's for that matter can provide rapid-reaction forces for every latent conflict, as conference diplomacy might not be the most relevant form of diplomacy available when dealing with a problem that is strictly bilateral to begin with.
However, this is not an issue that is exclusive to the new diplomacy, old diplomacy also has this separation of useful aspects. After all, one has to be sufficiently knowledgeable to distinguish between a situation that calls for secret diplomacy and a situation that calls for open-channel diplomacy.
Evaluating the new diplomacy in terms of its individual components that may or may not make up this questionable theory (for Berridge denies its existence) does not, in my opinion, provide a sufficiently equal ground on which to evaluate its efficiency (or its importance for that matter). The fact that it has managed to integrate itself into what was originally considered to be a more state-centric version of diplomacy to turn into a seamless fabric of possible manners of diplomatic interaction is taking the turn from attempting to drive a car with a busted tire to a brand-spanking-new Porsche.
The Three Pillars of New Diplomacy
public diplomacy, the Para- diplomacy of non-state actors, and inclusive forms of multilateralism are the three pillars of new diplomacy. Although they are different in many ways but they are interconnected elements. All three could be seen as cofactors. Discussion concerning new diplomacy to overstate the importance of multilateral diplomacy for example is to argue that Para-diplomacy and public diplomacy are subsets of multilateral diplomacy. However the rise of multilateral diplomacy as overarching factor has gained considerable ground in the course of the past century.
Although the cold war rivalry undermined multilateral diplomacy in which due to excessive secrecy of two superpowers and glorified state to state relations. The United Nations, The European Union and Non-Aligned movement made enormous contribution to flourish multilateral diplomacy. In terms of representation at the headquarters of the UN most of the countries are represented and it can said that the UN is useful to all countries in general but particularly to the countries which are for some reasons have never opened embassies. It can be argued that the UN as non-state actor an advantage for multilateral diplomacy. This clearly shows that how non-state actors interrelated with multilateral diplomacy.
Moreover public diplomacy also is interrelated with the above mentioned two elements of new diplomacy in which its main features, including international information systems which is used to bridge as strategic communications service for foreign community and Educational and cultural affairs mutual understanding among different nations and also international Broadcasting providing information in order to build relationships.
My over all argument is. it is important not to divorce public diplomacy from Para-diplomacy of non-state actors and multilateral diplomacy. All could be seen as cofactors and equally it is important no over or underestimate the relative influence of each of these cofactors
Although the cold war rivalry undermined multilateral diplomacy in which due to excessive secrecy of two superpowers and glorified state to state relations. The United Nations, The European Union and Non-Aligned movement made enormous contribution to flourish multilateral diplomacy. In terms of representation at the headquarters of the UN most of the countries are represented and it can said that the UN is useful to all countries in general but particularly to the countries which are for some reasons have never opened embassies. It can be argued that the UN as non-state actor an advantage for multilateral diplomacy. This clearly shows that how non-state actors interrelated with multilateral diplomacy.
Moreover public diplomacy also is interrelated with the above mentioned two elements of new diplomacy in which its main features, including international information systems which is used to bridge as strategic communications service for foreign community and Educational and cultural affairs mutual understanding among different nations and also international Broadcasting providing information in order to build relationships.
My over all argument is. it is important not to divorce public diplomacy from Para-diplomacy of non-state actors and multilateral diplomacy. All could be seen as cofactors and equally it is important no over or underestimate the relative influence of each of these cofactors
Important aspects of New Diplomacy
It was still a question of whether there was anything new in so-called new diplomacy, but from recent seminars it has become much more clear that there has been developments, improvements and new aspects.
To begin with , multilateral and conference diplomacy has certainly emerged as an important factor in diplomacy . It is basically a number of conferences and meetings attended my more than three states at the same time. It is differentiated from the bilateral diplomacy were only two parties were involved and both had to reach an agreement if one resisted than the negotiation failed. By contrast , multilateral diplomacy provides the best chance for an effective and successful negotiations by giving them an opportunity to make decisions by majority voting. A good instance of this would be the general assembly within the UN. Moreover, the post-Cold war multilateralism is characterised by more complex agendas of conferences and negotiations with large number of issues and the growing involvement of experts , citizens groups and NGO's. This inclusive forms of diplomacy are very important to maintain global peace and security. For instance the USA has an agreement with over hundred countries on crime solving process. If an american citizen commits a crime and flees to other country , that country's authorities will send the criminal back to USA for the required punishment and that goes same for the USA.
Over the past years NGO's have played and increasingly influential role in international negotiations mainly on enviromental issues, but how far can they go , after all they are not elected bodies. However, non-governmental organisations like Greenpeace can really be of big help in tackling environmental problems especially with its worldwide precense.
Many would say, the globalized world we live in today have increasingly brought new challenges to diplomacy , but with all these new improvements and developments the new diplomacy is making a way forward.
To begin with , multilateral and conference diplomacy has certainly emerged as an important factor in diplomacy . It is basically a number of conferences and meetings attended my more than three states at the same time. It is differentiated from the bilateral diplomacy were only two parties were involved and both had to reach an agreement if one resisted than the negotiation failed. By contrast , multilateral diplomacy provides the best chance for an effective and successful negotiations by giving them an opportunity to make decisions by majority voting. A good instance of this would be the general assembly within the UN. Moreover, the post-Cold war multilateralism is characterised by more complex agendas of conferences and negotiations with large number of issues and the growing involvement of experts , citizens groups and NGO's. This inclusive forms of diplomacy are very important to maintain global peace and security. For instance the USA has an agreement with over hundred countries on crime solving process. If an american citizen commits a crime and flees to other country , that country's authorities will send the criminal back to USA for the required punishment and that goes same for the USA.
Over the past years NGO's have played and increasingly influential role in international negotiations mainly on enviromental issues, but how far can they go , after all they are not elected bodies. However, non-governmental organisations like Greenpeace can really be of big help in tackling environmental problems especially with its worldwide precense.
Many would say, the globalized world we live in today have increasingly brought new challenges to diplomacy , but with all these new improvements and developments the new diplomacy is making a way forward.
it doesn't work when I want to comment...any ideas?
it doesn't work when I want to comment...any ideas?
I'm so posed to use the google account as id? well, but no comment became posted...
Help!
/malin
I'm so posed to use the google account as id? well, but no comment became posted...
Help!
/malin
Sunday 22 March 2009
Impressions of New Diplomacy
I believe that the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is the way diplomacy is now supported with other means at a state’s disposal in order to achieve maximum results. A state’s effort to shape the public opinion of another state in order to create its favourable image is one such exercise, as in the absence of public support, the diplomacy can’t yield its desired results. The use of Information and Communications Technology to reach the desired audience is perhaps one of the most effective way of promoting a state’s agenda. A network of TV and Radio stations operating in different languages is used as tool to affect the public sentiment of a particular state. This dissimation of information using the modern means of Information Technology plays a key role in the operation of diplomacy. In addition to this, the emergence of non state actors such as NGO’s has also transformed the way diplomacy is now conducted. These NGO’s often do the spade work in promoting a state’s agenda and pave the way for a subsequent diplomacy. There has also been an issue of these NGO’s undermining a state’s sovereignty and its evident from their activities in various parts of the world. All these developments have made the new diplomacy more challenging and has transformed the way diplomacy is now conducted.
The main aspect of New Diplomacy
Between seminars 5 and 7 we have covered three key aspects of the New Diplomacy: Public Diplomacy, emergence of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as diplomats and Conference Diplomacy. It is rather difficult to decide upon the most improtant aspect of the New Diplomacy, taking into account considerable amount of impact all three have made on the conduct of diplomacy. Nevertheless, a judgement has to be made.
Rise of NGOs is certainly an important factor in the changing paradigm of diplomacy, however, not a new one, preceded by similar non-state actors the likes of Roman Catholic Church, and not the only one of its kind in the modern context, accompanied by a number of other non-state actors such as celebrity diplomats and pressure groups. As for the conference diplomacy, its emergence is certainly having a major influence on the constant reshaping of modern diplomacy by empowering the 'openness' aspect of it. Nevertheless, it can also be seen merely as the updated version of summit diplomacy, which in its term, although originating during the Second World War, coined by Winston Churchill, can be seen as an outgrowth of the late 19th/early 20th centuries Hague conferences and League of Nations meetings. Public diplomacy, on the other hand, despite possible historical links to France's efforts to promote their language and culture in the 17th and 18th centuries, largely defined in terms of a whole new way of foreign policy making and a major information and communication technological revolution, is clearly a new development in the world of diplomacy.
Rise of NGOs is certainly an important factor in the changing paradigm of diplomacy, however, not a new one, preceded by similar non-state actors the likes of Roman Catholic Church, and not the only one of its kind in the modern context, accompanied by a number of other non-state actors such as celebrity diplomats and pressure groups. As for the conference diplomacy, its emergence is certainly having a major influence on the constant reshaping of modern diplomacy by empowering the 'openness' aspect of it. Nevertheless, it can also be seen merely as the updated version of summit diplomacy, which in its term, although originating during the Second World War, coined by Winston Churchill, can be seen as an outgrowth of the late 19th/early 20th centuries Hague conferences and League of Nations meetings. Public diplomacy, on the other hand, despite possible historical links to France's efforts to promote their language and culture in the 17th and 18th centuries, largely defined in terms of a whole new way of foreign policy making and a major information and communication technological revolution, is clearly a new development in the world of diplomacy.
The new diplomacy
I think after the all the knowledge and understanding of the past few weeks regarding the three topics which where public diplomacy conference diplomacy and NGO/celebrity diplomacy, I bebleve the most that NGO/celebrity diplomacy has got me wondering and asking myself could this type of diplomacy be coined as new diplomacy. NGO/celebrity diplomacy has been growing over the past sixty years. After both WWII and the Cold War non-state actors have become vital in trying to solve some of the worlds worst problems. for over 15 years now NGO's have been welcomed in to the UN and have worked on some important cases for example Ottawa treaty in 1997 in which 122 governments’ signed a life time ban on landmines being used or imported. The NGO's used many tat tics for example multilateral diplomacy with heads of states and lobbying something which was oly reserved to diplomats and other governmental officials. this type of diplomacy just shows us how diplomacy is transforming. This campaigned was all NGO related it also involved other non state actors such as late Princess Diana she was considers a celebrity diplomat she also used her status to help with the campaigning.According to the author Willets Dina “transformed diplomacy from a narrow confined vehicle of states craft to embracing wider diffuse dynamic” other celebrities also are changing the face of diplomacy for example Angelina Jolie who became UNHCR ambassador in 2001, she has been to economic forums disused important issues with government leaders about alot of her humanitarian work. this type of diplomacy would have never have even been dreamed of centuries ago. This why i think that this type of diplomacy is the most important because it has a laregr effect not just on the government but on the ordinary citizen.
Most important aspects of New Diplomacy
Its hard to just pick one of the many important features of new diplomacy, all important aspects of New diplomacy I would say is due to the emergents of globalism. That people, businesses and states try to interact more with other nations and this it is made simpler by aviation and other speedy transport systems. This has increased amount of information, trade and political relationships immensely. The internet is very useful tool to get first contact and then to maintain relationships. Furthermore reporting changes or advancements world wide has been made easier and the web is also a good place to publicise and spread views.
From the creation of League of Nations states found multilateral negotiations in conferences and summits very important since it went much faster if all concerned parties (or allies) were present. Soft power is the way to get more influence in these forums for negotiation. Profiling of once country is more and more important since the number of states has increased. To try to stick out of the crowd, to get heard by having leading research in a field, specialise in a issue like development, or be leading in banking will get a state power of persuasion in these as well as other areas. This is the way of Public diplomacy.
People form different countries find common values in international NGO's they join, to try to get influence on the establishment not only in their own country but mostly to change something in a different country where they feel/hear help is needed (public to government). NGO's are a very important development for democratizing the international system, overall public diplomacy is most valuable for smaller states or entities. Geoffrey Wiseman states that since NGO's now are more and more recognized actors by states, we are even able to speak of polylateralism. NGO's are the strongest actors of public diplomacy since they are the most specialised and profiled actors out there. They also mostly uses media to “shame and blame” but also to raise awareness of the issue of their interest. Brian Hocking states: “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. ” ( in 'Reconfiguring public diplomacy' on www.fco.gov.uk).
To conclude a mix of public and polylateralism are the most important aspects of the new diplomacy since they represent a way to a more publicly open and scrutinized diplomatic society which was what Woodrow Wilson wanted from the beginning. However not all NGO's might have peaceful agendas or want to work within the parliamentarian framework (AL-Qaeda, Claim the Streets) but I guess that is the double edge of democracy.
From the creation of League of Nations states found multilateral negotiations in conferences and summits very important since it went much faster if all concerned parties (or allies) were present. Soft power is the way to get more influence in these forums for negotiation. Profiling of once country is more and more important since the number of states has increased. To try to stick out of the crowd, to get heard by having leading research in a field, specialise in a issue like development, or be leading in banking will get a state power of persuasion in these as well as other areas. This is the way of Public diplomacy.
People form different countries find common values in international NGO's they join, to try to get influence on the establishment not only in their own country but mostly to change something in a different country where they feel/hear help is needed (public to government). NGO's are a very important development for democratizing the international system, overall public diplomacy is most valuable for smaller states or entities. Geoffrey Wiseman states that since NGO's now are more and more recognized actors by states, we are even able to speak of polylateralism. NGO's are the strongest actors of public diplomacy since they are the most specialised and profiled actors out there. They also mostly uses media to “shame and blame” but also to raise awareness of the issue of their interest. Brian Hocking states: “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. ” ( in 'Reconfiguring public diplomacy' on www.fco.gov.uk).
To conclude a mix of public and polylateralism are the most important aspects of the new diplomacy since they represent a way to a more publicly open and scrutinized diplomatic society which was what Woodrow Wilson wanted from the beginning. However not all NGO's might have peaceful agendas or want to work within the parliamentarian framework (AL-Qaeda, Claim the Streets) but I guess that is the double edge of democracy.
The new diplomacy
One of the important differences that the new diplomacy had from traditional diplomacy was that it became less secretive. It was decided that information about agreements reached between decision makers was to be made more available to the public. But I think the most important part, in particular for the current era, relates to the groups and people who are actually involved in the decision making process. Since 1918, due to the implementation of Wilson’s ideas, states are no longer the only contributors to decision making processes within international politics. In other words, there was a move towards multilateral and or conference diplomacy, and also that decision making processes would involve NGOs and other non-state actors (as opposed to the previous focus on bi-lateral diplomacy, only between states). These more inclusive forms of diplomacy are important in contributing to global peace and security.
From our visit to the embassy, it could be seen that although networking and interaction with foreign ministries remains an essential part to the carrying out of their tasks, they also interact with NGOs and other non-state actors, which plays an important part and helps compliment procedures.
By including a wider range of groups and people, the decision making process can have much wider democratic legitimacy and also access to expertise (some issues, for example civil aviation, require specialised information). This relates to the fact that as the agenda of diplomacy has changed to include many more highly specialized issues, for example climate issues, the inclusion of non-state-actors, such as Greenpeace, which are able to spend a lot of time and money on these issues, has enhanced this process greatly. This is also as now, the diplomatic agenda includes many more issues of so called low politics.
One important outcome from this move towards greater multilateralism and inclusion was the creation of the United Nations. Although it has been said that the UN has been little better than the League of Nations, before it, it nonetheless was created to act as ‘an international forum for the peaceful settlement of disputes and as a deterrent against another world war’ (White), and has certainly lasted a lot longer than the League did.
The importance of NGO representation can be demonstrated by the success of the Ottawa convention to ban landmines. Also CSCAB, as a non-governmental forum, has assisted in creating a new norm within multilateralism, for regional security dialogue.
As global challenges are increasing it has become more important for the world to make a global response. By including global civil society within multilateral diplomacy, the new diplomacy has made important steps forward towards this.
From our visit to the embassy, it could be seen that although networking and interaction with foreign ministries remains an essential part to the carrying out of their tasks, they also interact with NGOs and other non-state actors, which plays an important part and helps compliment procedures.
By including a wider range of groups and people, the decision making process can have much wider democratic legitimacy and also access to expertise (some issues, for example civil aviation, require specialised information). This relates to the fact that as the agenda of diplomacy has changed to include many more highly specialized issues, for example climate issues, the inclusion of non-state-actors, such as Greenpeace, which are able to spend a lot of time and money on these issues, has enhanced this process greatly. This is also as now, the diplomatic agenda includes many more issues of so called low politics.
One important outcome from this move towards greater multilateralism and inclusion was the creation of the United Nations. Although it has been said that the UN has been little better than the League of Nations, before it, it nonetheless was created to act as ‘an international forum for the peaceful settlement of disputes and as a deterrent against another world war’ (White), and has certainly lasted a lot longer than the League did.
The importance of NGO representation can be demonstrated by the success of the Ottawa convention to ban landmines. Also CSCAB, as a non-governmental forum, has assisted in creating a new norm within multilateralism, for regional security dialogue.
As global challenges are increasing it has become more important for the world to make a global response. By including global civil society within multilateral diplomacy, the new diplomacy has made important steps forward towards this.
New Diplomacy
The current global diplomatic world has become extremely complex, due to many significant factors. One important feature which now exists in the diplomatic domain is the increasing verification of interdependence amongst states but also amongst other actors in the international system. Developments of globalisation have and continue to allow the growth of this dependency. Nevertheless it is quite difficult to assume what the most important aspect of modern diplomacy might be.
The growing importance of transnational organisations in the contemporary global system, which undermines the traditional assumption of ‘statecraft’ due to the increasing significant role of non state actors in diplomatic processes. Thus one can say that non state actors are one important aspect. Environmental, financial and commercial organisations are now included in diplomatic meetings depending on the issues concerned.
Issues’ concerning the political agenda is also a significant aspect. Military concerns are still considered to be on top of the agenda, along with other leading issues also, such as the financial crisis and environmental matters. These factors have led to the increase necessity of multilateral diplomacy, as the current world system is so connected; issues now not only affect one but affect all. Needless to say this is not to say that all actors primarily states need the cooperation of other s in order to achieve their own objectives.
Multilateralism along with the growing inclusion of non state actors is extremely important in new diplomacy. In addition one must not forget the contributions of the technological and communications revolution which has and will continue to change many features of conventional diplomacy
The current global diplomatic world has become extremely complex, due to many significant factors. One important feature which now exists in the diplomatic domain is the increasing verification of interdependence amongst states but also amongst other actors in the international system. Developments of globalisation have and continue to allow the growth of this dependency. Nevertheless it is quite difficult to assume what the most important aspect of modern diplomacy might be.
The growing importance of transnational organisations in the contemporary global system, which undermines the traditional assumption of ‘statecraft’ due to the increasing significant role of non state actors in diplomatic processes. Thus one can say that non state actors are one important aspect. Environmental, financial and commercial organisations are now included in diplomatic meetings depending on the issues concerned.
Issues’ concerning the political agenda is also a significant aspect. Military concerns are still considered to be on top of the agenda, along with other leading issues also, such as the financial crisis and environmental matters. These factors have led to the increase necessity of multilateral diplomacy, as the current world system is so connected; issues now not only affect one but affect all. Needless to say this is not to say that all actors primarily states need the cooperation of other s in order to achieve their own objectives.
Multilateralism along with the growing inclusion of non state actors is extremely important in new diplomacy. In addition one must not forget the contributions of the technological and communications revolution which has and will continue to change many features of conventional diplomacy
Public diplomacy and the importance of soft power in a complex international system
It is undisputable that today’s diplomacy or the so-called “new diplomacy” is greatly challenged by a more complex international system where non-state actors and a more informed world require a new approach in the conduct of diplomacy. Globalization has gradually affected not only intra-state relations but also the conduct of politics in general, it is no longer an exclusive matter reserved for a certain elite. Accountability and public scrutiny have transformed substantially the way not only diplomacy but also politics are conducted. The “information age” we live in today makes manipulation of public opinion a very hard task. Today’s diplomacy is faced with a constant bombardment of scrutiny where a state’s actions need to always be not only justified but also presented within a moral framework. The example of George Bush’s Junior war against his infamous Axis of Evil shows to what extent moral conduct has become an internationally accepted norm after World War II. Free the Iraqi people from Saddam and install democracy covered up the more self-interested intention of a wider influence in the Middle East and control over oil resources. This launched crusade of peace and democracy of course miserably failed for a simple reason George Bush words did not synchronize with the actions on the ground,which brings up the question of the role and importance of soft power in the promotion of a state’s interests. An effective promotion of soft power nowadays needs to include a variety of elements from non-state actors to the internet. Public diplomacy can only be effective when the promotion of certain interests can be mutually recognized: you need to convince the other party that what you want is what they want and vice-versa. The role of the “new diplomacy” is to take into consideration the new perspective that elements such as non-state actors can bring to diplomacy that can encompass a variety of different approaches and views that can only compliment the already set rules of the “old” diplomacy. A greater flexibility is therefore an imminent part of this new era in the conduct of diplomacy. A more successful bilateral, multilateral and polylateral diplomacy need to be backed up by a greater credibility of the state’s “good” intentions therefore a successful and intensive conduct of public diplomacy.
New Diplomacy Involving NGOs
There is no doubt in my mind that non-State actors such as NGOs are directly involved in diplomacy in modern times. My focus however is more on religious NGOs, particularly the Vatican. It is interesting to note that the Vatican is a Church and State institution. The Roman Catholic Church has been in existence long before 1929 when the Vatican city- state was established. It is the sovereign territory of the Holy See and official residence of the pope, who is also the head of the Roman Catholic Church. This places the Vatican in a unique position in terms of diplomacy as it has observer status in the UN and has diplomatic ties with several countries including Arab states. As it is a church/state institution, it is often not clear when it functions as an NGO. Obviously, on the church side, the pope speaks against abortion and promotes this philosophy worldwide, bearing in mind that the Catholic Church has over one billion members worldwide, meaning many countries are aware of this. We must also remember that countries like Croatia, Poland, Spain and a few others are predominantly Catholic. Whether by divine providence or fate, the late pope John Paul II, the most charismatic pope ever, who was made for television, came along at the right time, when technology would finally make him available to peoples all round the world. His funeral created diplomatic tensions for China and Taiwan. The Chinese government boycotted the funeral because of the attendance of President Chen of Taiwan. The deceased pope was no doubt a diplomat either in life or in death. Even the current pope continues to spearhead the Catholic Church in world affairs such as ethical, educational, and environmental issues. Meetings with government officials as well as other NGOs are often held at Vatican city with the pope in his capacity of head of state while he appears to the public like his predecessor as an NGO fighting for the common good of man on basic issues of life. The current pope's recent visit to the US appears to be both in his capacity as a head of state and as the head of the Roman Catholic Church as state issues were probably discussed with the American President and open mass was also held there. Last year, an international children's NGO, International Federation Terre des Hommes, wrote an open letter to the pope to intervene in Zimbabwe, urging President Mugabe to reject violence and uphold democracy. What is not clear to me is whether this children's NGO was liasing with the pope as a statesman or as a religious figure. One thing is clear though, the pope is certainly a diplomat. Any comments...
Crafted Agenda of the new Diplomacy
The most important aspect of the new diplomacy is based on the emergence of non governmental organisation, multinational corporations, and new world actors. However, many would argue that the secret of the new diplomacy resides heavily in the old diplomacy.
Non governmental organisations are not elected bodies in the domestic and international affairs. For that reason, it is difficult to argue the importance of NGO’s in real political agenda and process other than charity. Some of NGO’s characteristics include peaceful agenda which has the potential to mobilise people to form a public opinion and above all confront states when there is a real clash of interests. The legitimacy of non governmental resides in trust that the general society feels strongly about in order to eradicate all form of evil and promote good. It is also necessary to note that NGO’s are also building networks and coalitions with major organisation such as the United Nations and multinational corporations. It is also worth considering the fact that the global membership of some NGO’s supersedes that of most states and some multinational corporations economic positions exceeds some nation states gross domestic product.
Looking at new world actors, ranging from religious guru and celebrities it is necessary to note that religious leaders role in the world affairs existed before and after the famous unrest of the world history. For instance the role that the Roman Catholic Church in Poland. Furthermore, the Vatican has a seat at the United Nations. Not only is Vatican a state within a state, it is a state in world diplomacy.
New world actors also include celebrities and the most important element about these kinds of actors is that they are professional communicators. Celebrity diplomats are often regarded as being good at publicity they can easily engage with the general public.
Many would argue that one of the most important phases of the new diplomacy has extended the sovereignty of the great power through the United nations process and non governmental organization. Rising diplomats are directly or indirectly used by their parent states and most importantly are dominated and subordinated without taking them over since because they are attractive and people all over the world tend to trust their noble works. However, it is difficult to foresee old diplomacy loose it grips as the new gathers its strength.
Non governmental organisations are not elected bodies in the domestic and international affairs. For that reason, it is difficult to argue the importance of NGO’s in real political agenda and process other than charity. Some of NGO’s characteristics include peaceful agenda which has the potential to mobilise people to form a public opinion and above all confront states when there is a real clash of interests. The legitimacy of non governmental resides in trust that the general society feels strongly about in order to eradicate all form of evil and promote good. It is also necessary to note that NGO’s are also building networks and coalitions with major organisation such as the United Nations and multinational corporations. It is also worth considering the fact that the global membership of some NGO’s supersedes that of most states and some multinational corporations economic positions exceeds some nation states gross domestic product.
Looking at new world actors, ranging from religious guru and celebrities it is necessary to note that religious leaders role in the world affairs existed before and after the famous unrest of the world history. For instance the role that the Roman Catholic Church in Poland. Furthermore, the Vatican has a seat at the United Nations. Not only is Vatican a state within a state, it is a state in world diplomacy.
New world actors also include celebrities and the most important element about these kinds of actors is that they are professional communicators. Celebrity diplomats are often regarded as being good at publicity they can easily engage with the general public.
Many would argue that one of the most important phases of the new diplomacy has extended the sovereignty of the great power through the United nations process and non governmental organization. Rising diplomats are directly or indirectly used by their parent states and most importantly are dominated and subordinated without taking them over since because they are attractive and people all over the world tend to trust their noble works. However, it is difficult to foresee old diplomacy loose it grips as the new gathers its strength.
Public Diplomacy- Discussions of seminar 5/7
Following the seminar discussion of week 5/7 we note Hans Morgenthau dismissing New Diplomacy naming it Public Diplomacy. In my opinion, Public Diplomacy is very important as we see that is directly link (for example) from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office directly to diplomatic missions overseas. This is is not relatively new, it can be traced since the Ancient Greece were head of missions did not engaged in secret negotiation, they openly negotiated policies in public.
Today Public Diplomacy, continues to be used by diplomats as a way of communication to gain direct foreign investment to their state, to promote tourism of their country as it is a source of income and finally is used to address or influence the public of other states on issues such as the promotion of exports or foreign investment in the state where they are officially accredited. According to Berridge, it can also be used as 'propaganda' by government coercively in order to mislead the individuals. Technically, this can also be used as a form of subversion, for instance in embassies within the diplomatic corps there are spies who are sent to create disorder, create unrest in the state which they are accredited, in the long term this can lead to regime change or even a dangerous military coup. We have seen this in 1973 when the United States government were implicated in the when Augusto Pinochet became president while former president was removed and murdered.
Public diplomacy can be used in terms of promoting the values and culture of other state whereas in some situation we have seen the British Council coming under-fire for apparently being accused of using their organization as a form of 'subversion' to create democracy. This has happen in East Europe and the Middle East. In terms of political issues it has also been the key to solve crises hence we note a link between the government and the public. In conflict ridden states in the Middle East diplomats strive to influence the activities and opinions of the public overseas to try and influence their government to be democratic, this remains to be seen. Nevertheless, since we live in a globalized world todays non-state actors from Non-Governmental-Organizations (NGO's) have an important role to address and influence on issues such as human rights and poverty in troubled states.
In multilateral organizations such the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) we note the engagement and dialogue between officials representing their state. However even in multilateral institutions there is still the need for secrecy, we see 'corridor' or 'hallway' diplomacy in the EU and UN where negotiations are takes places behind close doors and members of the public are excluded.
Most Important Aspect of Diplomacy
What is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy?
To fully understand this question I had to look back over the characteristics of ‘New’ diplomacy and read this book which discussed new diplomacy in a lot of detail, the book was by José Calvet De Magalhaes.
Over these past weeks I’ve come to understand that not only is there a ‘new’ diplomacy but there are lots of other ways to operate in diplomatic situations such as bilateral diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy and ‘polylateral’ diplomacy. In order to grow and achieve a better understanding of diplomacy I believe that we must be able to operate on these three levels of diplomacy as this is an integral part of being able to work as a diplomat.
Another important aspect of the ‘new’ diplomacy is the new ways they are now able to communicate between states, in conferences and through propaganda, to a certain extent. Celebrities have now highlighted aspects of a country that need to be addressed; they’ve also worked alongside NGOs to bring more support to this region because we tend to care more about what a celebrity is doing than what a politician is doing unfortunately. In 1996 a similar method was used in the Ottawa Process where ‘new’ diplomacy used other means of communication between international organisations and conferences to carry out a treaty banning anti-personnel land mines.
As we can see all three methods of diplomacy; Bilateral, Multilateral and Polylateral are a collective method where issues arise and are dealt with in an effective way using these methods, lively debates can occur and resolutions can be discussed. However, Multilateral and Bilateral are the main means of resolving conflicts nowadays and the use of polylateral diplomacy needs to be used more in order for it to become a more effective form of diplomacy used in certain situations.
To fully understand this question I had to look back over the characteristics of ‘New’ diplomacy and read this book which discussed new diplomacy in a lot of detail, the book was by José Calvet De Magalhaes.
Over these past weeks I’ve come to understand that not only is there a ‘new’ diplomacy but there are lots of other ways to operate in diplomatic situations such as bilateral diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy and ‘polylateral’ diplomacy. In order to grow and achieve a better understanding of diplomacy I believe that we must be able to operate on these three levels of diplomacy as this is an integral part of being able to work as a diplomat.
Another important aspect of the ‘new’ diplomacy is the new ways they are now able to communicate between states, in conferences and through propaganda, to a certain extent. Celebrities have now highlighted aspects of a country that need to be addressed; they’ve also worked alongside NGOs to bring more support to this region because we tend to care more about what a celebrity is doing than what a politician is doing unfortunately. In 1996 a similar method was used in the Ottawa Process where ‘new’ diplomacy used other means of communication between international organisations and conferences to carry out a treaty banning anti-personnel land mines.
As we can see all three methods of diplomacy; Bilateral, Multilateral and Polylateral are a collective method where issues arise and are dealt with in an effective way using these methods, lively debates can occur and resolutions can be discussed. However, Multilateral and Bilateral are the main means of resolving conflicts nowadays and the use of polylateral diplomacy needs to be used more in order for it to become a more effective form of diplomacy used in certain situations.
Impressions of the "new" diplomacy
“The game didn’t change; it’s just that more players are included in it,” and, I think, that’s the main difference between “old” and “new” diplomacy. Today not only do we have diplomats and foreign ministers in the diplomacy field but also Head of Government/State, who aim to play a primary role. This occurred during the end of WWII with the apparition of Summit between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, and it’s had intensified during the Cold war and had as result to let Head of State/Government think that their complete involvement is necessary. The other result of these Summits it’s multilateral, more states can participate, which engender the creation of multilateral conferences, where not only Head of State/Government are there but also Non-State Actors such as NGOs. This opening of the diplomacy field to non-state actor is an acknowledgement of their statute as player, even though they do not have the same weight as State actors. This openness brings diplomacy out of its “elite” and untouchable scold which is accentuated by the impact of globalization and the speed of communication. States had to open to the new technology and by doing so to the public in general, so diplomacy is no more mysterious, needing specialist and high profiled individual. Even if the public in general has no weight in the decision-making process, public opinion matters. So in my opinion the most important aspect of “new” diplomacy is that it is more open and transparent or at least try to be (forced to be as well sometimes).
Reflections of seminars 5-7
Whilst it is still debatable that the terms ‘new’ and ‘old’ are particularly accurate, from the recent seminars it has become clear that certain, more recent developments and tools are gaining importance within diplomacy.
Firstly multilateral and conference diplomacy has emerged as an important tool to diplomacy today. A good example of this kind of diplomacy is the general assembly within the UN. It addresses more effectively the issue of interdependence, and global issues such as the environment. Previously, bilateral diplomacy dominated and therefore issues such as these would be difficult to resolve, and there was a far more exclusive and private nature to it. Furthermore, it encourages a more open and inclusive practice of diplomacy, by often incorporating international institutions and NGOs. To add to this it can to an extent include citizens as information about negotiations, and decisions reached becomes more public – potentially empowering people to shape their governments decisions, although it can be argued that this can be used in a way for a governments to influence their citizens.
The second aspect of diplomacy that has increased in importance is the presence of non-state actors such as NGOs and MNCs, and their arguably gaining political influence. Recently, more and more non state actors have been involved in the decision making process or contracted to research in order for governments to reach more educated and well rounded decisions. However, I would argue that this new found power has certainly got its limits. The issue of these non state actors undermining state sovereignty has been raised and even epitomised in the ejection of NGOs in Sudan who are seen to have certain political affiliations within the country. This situation has underlined, for some that while non-state actors can certainly be involved within conference diplomacy, there is arguably a point in which states will use their own diplomatic power to place constraints upon them.
To conclude, I feel that diplomacy has certainly evolved over recent years to become a more open and interconnected process, which seems to reflect upon the nature of the world today. I believe that in spite of these developments bilateral diplomacy and state sovereignty should not be underestimated – as both are still present and important within the world of diplomacy.
Firstly multilateral and conference diplomacy has emerged as an important tool to diplomacy today. A good example of this kind of diplomacy is the general assembly within the UN. It addresses more effectively the issue of interdependence, and global issues such as the environment. Previously, bilateral diplomacy dominated and therefore issues such as these would be difficult to resolve, and there was a far more exclusive and private nature to it. Furthermore, it encourages a more open and inclusive practice of diplomacy, by often incorporating international institutions and NGOs. To add to this it can to an extent include citizens as information about negotiations, and decisions reached becomes more public – potentially empowering people to shape their governments decisions, although it can be argued that this can be used in a way for a governments to influence their citizens.
The second aspect of diplomacy that has increased in importance is the presence of non-state actors such as NGOs and MNCs, and their arguably gaining political influence. Recently, more and more non state actors have been involved in the decision making process or contracted to research in order for governments to reach more educated and well rounded decisions. However, I would argue that this new found power has certainly got its limits. The issue of these non state actors undermining state sovereignty has been raised and even epitomised in the ejection of NGOs in Sudan who are seen to have certain political affiliations within the country. This situation has underlined, for some that while non-state actors can certainly be involved within conference diplomacy, there is arguably a point in which states will use their own diplomatic power to place constraints upon them.
To conclude, I feel that diplomacy has certainly evolved over recent years to become a more open and interconnected process, which seems to reflect upon the nature of the world today. I believe that in spite of these developments bilateral diplomacy and state sovereignty should not be underestimated – as both are still present and important within the world of diplomacy.
The new diplomacy: Following the discussions in seminars 5 to 7, in your opinion what is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy?
Well in my opinion, communication continues to be the most important aspect of diplomacy itself and consequently of “new diplomacy” as well. When analysing the world we live in nowadays, it is more than obvious that communication plays a big role not only nationally or regionally but internationally also. Like during the ancient times where states used communication as a form of negotiating with outsiders, communication still helps to solve out issues now, whether they are minor ones or major ones.
As we can now see, since the 9/11 and with all the conflicts around the world, Public Diplomacy became the key approach to deal with complex political situations. Public Diplomacy is defined as the strategic planning and execution of informational, cultural and educational programming by an advocate country to create a public opinion environment in a target country or countries that will enable target country political leaders to make decisions that are supportive of advocate country's foreign policy objectives. Meaning that, it involves the dynamic, planned use of cultural, educational and informational programming to affect a required result that is directly related to a government's foreign policy objectives. It thus goes well beyond the usual concepts of propaganda, in which a particular message is "injected" into the target country repeatedly, or public relations, in which branding, image, and advertising are the key concepts.
Traditional diplomacy or "government-to-government diplomacy" is focused essentially on efforts by officials of one country to persuade officials of another country to take particular actions. Public diplomacy, on the other hand, aims to shape the public opinion environment in a target country so that officials in that country can take actions the advocate country wants that will be accepted by the general public. This is particularly important in democracies and open societies, as well as in emerging democracies that are just beginning to taste freedom.
Therefore and to finalise, public diplomacy is neither propaganda nor public relations; but rather a particular strategy of communications that is goal-oriented, focused on results both short-term and long-term, and aimed at building a positive image of a country that will resonate in foreign public opinion. Most importantly, though, public diplomacy must support the objectives of traditional diplomacy or it will not survive as a line of work.
As we can now see, since the 9/11 and with all the conflicts around the world, Public Diplomacy became the key approach to deal with complex political situations. Public Diplomacy is defined as the strategic planning and execution of informational, cultural and educational programming by an advocate country to create a public opinion environment in a target country or countries that will enable target country political leaders to make decisions that are supportive of advocate country's foreign policy objectives. Meaning that, it involves the dynamic, planned use of cultural, educational and informational programming to affect a required result that is directly related to a government's foreign policy objectives. It thus goes well beyond the usual concepts of propaganda, in which a particular message is "injected" into the target country repeatedly, or public relations, in which branding, image, and advertising are the key concepts.
Traditional diplomacy or "government-to-government diplomacy" is focused essentially on efforts by officials of one country to persuade officials of another country to take particular actions. Public diplomacy, on the other hand, aims to shape the public opinion environment in a target country so that officials in that country can take actions the advocate country wants that will be accepted by the general public. This is particularly important in democracies and open societies, as well as in emerging democracies that are just beginning to taste freedom.
Therefore and to finalise, public diplomacy is neither propaganda nor public relations; but rather a particular strategy of communications that is goal-oriented, focused on results both short-term and long-term, and aimed at building a positive image of a country that will resonate in foreign public opinion. Most importantly, though, public diplomacy must support the objectives of traditional diplomacy or it will not survive as a line of work.
The most important aspect of 'new' diplomacy?
It remains a moot point whether there is such a thing as a ‘new’ diplomacy as one may rather see the changes which have occurred over the past decades as an evolution of diplomacy accommodating to new challenges posed by globalisation and the development of technology entailing new moods of interaction.
Some of the new aspects are the inclusiveness of new issues and actors as well as the use of soft power (a term coined by Joseph Nye) and public diplomacy is of high importance in order to foster cultural understanding and exchange in which the internet plays a significant role. This was highlighted during our visit to the Danish Embassy where the representative spoke about public diplomacy (or soft power) how important it was.
The embracing of ‘low’ politics has impacted on the security agenda of the international community as it has become evident since the end of the ‘deadlock’ of the Cold War that ‘human security’ plays a significant role in the process of maintaining international stability and peace. Post-Cold War conflicts have changed in their nature from being predominantly inter-state to intra-state with conflicts generated by issues such as migration, disease, desertification, pollution, etc. This has been noted in the new war thesis put forward by Newman[1]. Along with the speeding up of globalisation, national interests have become more complex and ‘international’ in nature as politics no-longer stops at the water edge. Many of these issues are in need of a collective response – perhaps in multilateral fora.
The influence of NGOs through lobbyism and consultation has become an integrated part of the process of bureaucratic decision making as well as the increase in multilateral/conference diplomacy. However, despite meeting on a multilateral basis bilateral diplomacy is the predominant mean of interaction. In relation to multilateral diplomacy decisions are usually made in smaller committees before being ‘rubberstamped’ by the plenary assembly. Even here do states make alliances in order to get a certain view accepted. In terms of crisis diplomacy it is best conducted through the means of backchannels, which the negotiations between King Hussein of Jordan and Rabin is a very interesting example of when they met in secrecy face to face over 20 years in order to secure peace and mutual understanding without the interference of public opinion and radical bureaucrats from each side. However, there are exceptions to the rule where it may be more prudent to let trusted representatives negotiate in the head of state’s place and thus reducing the risk of (cultural) misunderstandings.
Nevertheless, despite the evolution of the discipline bilateral diplomacy and its structures remain relevant and in use mostly only affecting on an organisational manner according to national prioritisation. Embassies are even gaining new tasks as an outcome of globalisation and have become co-ordinators together with the MFA as well as ‘old’ tasks like consular services have become more profound due to increased travel and migration. These are issues which have been discussed during the past weeks.
It can be difficult to pin down the most important aspect of the new diplomacy; however, the inclusiveness of new issues and actors as well as the use of soft power is of the outmost importance. Finally, the discipline’s ability to keep evolving and adapting to new complex processes are very impressing as the ‘new’ and ‘old’ comes together in a complex synergy.
Some of the new aspects are the inclusiveness of new issues and actors as well as the use of soft power (a term coined by Joseph Nye) and public diplomacy is of high importance in order to foster cultural understanding and exchange in which the internet plays a significant role. This was highlighted during our visit to the Danish Embassy where the representative spoke about public diplomacy (or soft power) how important it was.
The embracing of ‘low’ politics has impacted on the security agenda of the international community as it has become evident since the end of the ‘deadlock’ of the Cold War that ‘human security’ plays a significant role in the process of maintaining international stability and peace. Post-Cold War conflicts have changed in their nature from being predominantly inter-state to intra-state with conflicts generated by issues such as migration, disease, desertification, pollution, etc. This has been noted in the new war thesis put forward by Newman[1]. Along with the speeding up of globalisation, national interests have become more complex and ‘international’ in nature as politics no-longer stops at the water edge. Many of these issues are in need of a collective response – perhaps in multilateral fora.
The influence of NGOs through lobbyism and consultation has become an integrated part of the process of bureaucratic decision making as well as the increase in multilateral/conference diplomacy. However, despite meeting on a multilateral basis bilateral diplomacy is the predominant mean of interaction. In relation to multilateral diplomacy decisions are usually made in smaller committees before being ‘rubberstamped’ by the plenary assembly. Even here do states make alliances in order to get a certain view accepted. In terms of crisis diplomacy it is best conducted through the means of backchannels, which the negotiations between King Hussein of Jordan and Rabin is a very interesting example of when they met in secrecy face to face over 20 years in order to secure peace and mutual understanding without the interference of public opinion and radical bureaucrats from each side. However, there are exceptions to the rule where it may be more prudent to let trusted representatives negotiate in the head of state’s place and thus reducing the risk of (cultural) misunderstandings.
Nevertheless, despite the evolution of the discipline bilateral diplomacy and its structures remain relevant and in use mostly only affecting on an organisational manner according to national prioritisation. Embassies are even gaining new tasks as an outcome of globalisation and have become co-ordinators together with the MFA as well as ‘old’ tasks like consular services have become more profound due to increased travel and migration. These are issues which have been discussed during the past weeks.
It can be difficult to pin down the most important aspect of the new diplomacy; however, the inclusiveness of new issues and actors as well as the use of soft power is of the outmost importance. Finally, the discipline’s ability to keep evolving and adapting to new complex processes are very impressing as the ‘new’ and ‘old’ comes together in a complex synergy.
[1] E. Newman, ‘The New Wars’ Debate: A Historical Perspective Is Needed’ in Security Dialogue, Vol. 35, no.2, (2004), pp. 173-189
New Diplomacy
After the seminars discussions I think the most important aspects of New Diplomacy is the public diplomacy. With the technology advances, diplomacy no longer depends on the hands of diplomats posted in different capitals because the speed and spread of information and propaganda has changed the way old diplomacy used to be conducted.
Today, in the globalize world, foreign ministries no longer have control over international issues alone, the non-state actors, such as NGOs, ICs and the public in general are all engaged in resolving international issues.
The establishment of the United Nations was the main foundation of public diplomacy; and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) play a crucial role from providing technological expertise to lobbying for policies on environment, poverty, third world debt, human rights, etc., a vivid example of openness and inclusive in the new diplomacy, are of private individual celebrities such the musicians Gildoff and Bono, footballers David Beckham, Ginolla, just to mention a few being influential in dealing with public issues. Also, international corporations have big influence on governments in policymaking for economical and technological reasons.
Foreign ministries still hold control over multilateral issues such as defense and security which are kept secret to the public
In conclusion, new diplomacy, with information technology, transport and communications (Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy), foreign ministers meetings, head of states and governments summits, the speed that news is spread via media has changed the way in which crucial information on international relations depended entirely from diplomat’s efficiency on data collection. Furthermore, after the September 11th 2001, terrorism has come to the top of the international agenda, where diplomacy is conducted multilaterally after hard power by the Bush Administration seems to be unsuccessful, soft power is now in use for public awareness in order to eradicate Muslim fundamentalism in the world. So far the most aspects of the new diplomacy is the shift from secrecy to more open and engagement of non-state actors and the public to solve the international matters.
The new diplomacy
Following the discussions in seminars 5 to 7, as far as I am concerned, the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is multilateral/conference diplomacy. The reason why I say this is because of the way multilateral diplomacy is organised and its openness to a variety of actors in the international system. In fact, it responds to two current trends. The first is that international affairs are more and more interconnected and they continue to concern even more, almost all countries. Hence, faced with these new circumstances, the reflex is to establish a group of those states most interested in dealing with it.
As a result, the first important feature of multilateral diplomacy is that it involves several states on the one hand, unlike the old diplomacy which is conducted bilaterally or between two particular states. A practical example of this would be the United Nations and its general assembly represented by all states.
On the other hand, apart from states, multilateral diplomacy also consists of other entities, that is, a large number of non-state actors such as Nongovernmental organisations which make it more important and useful since it does not only consider states as the main actors in World Politics. This relation between states and non state actors has been labelled 'polylateralism' or 'polylateral diplomacy' and it is considerably being practiced nowadays.
This type of diplomacy is concerned with a wide range of low politics issues such as the economy, terms of trade, environment and so on rather than high politics issues of security for instance. Moreover, it is more open to public scrutiny and control although secrecy is still in use.
To sum up, multilateral diplomacy is in my opinion the most important aspect in new diplomacy because of its wide embracing of different actors with different or common interests sometimes and its openness to the public. In the UN, debates are public even though the content of the real negotiations is kept secret within the members of the Security Council. This pattern is growing more and more as the world gets progressively more and more interconnected.
Therefore, we can conclude that the increase of multilateralism is a feature of our times, which opens up new fields of action for diplomacy.
As a result, the first important feature of multilateral diplomacy is that it involves several states on the one hand, unlike the old diplomacy which is conducted bilaterally or between two particular states. A practical example of this would be the United Nations and its general assembly represented by all states.
On the other hand, apart from states, multilateral diplomacy also consists of other entities, that is, a large number of non-state actors such as Nongovernmental organisations which make it more important and useful since it does not only consider states as the main actors in World Politics. This relation between states and non state actors has been labelled 'polylateralism' or 'polylateral diplomacy' and it is considerably being practiced nowadays.
This type of diplomacy is concerned with a wide range of low politics issues such as the economy, terms of trade, environment and so on rather than high politics issues of security for instance. Moreover, it is more open to public scrutiny and control although secrecy is still in use.
To sum up, multilateral diplomacy is in my opinion the most important aspect in new diplomacy because of its wide embracing of different actors with different or common interests sometimes and its openness to the public. In the UN, debates are public even though the content of the real negotiations is kept secret within the members of the Security Council. This pattern is growing more and more as the world gets progressively more and more interconnected.
Therefore, we can conclude that the increase of multilateralism is a feature of our times, which opens up new fields of action for diplomacy.
Public Diplomacy
Public diplomacy of some sort has existed for many years, and is as such not a new thing. States have for a long time been concerned with how other states and the peoples of other states perceive them and what they think of them. Yet, with globalisation and the advent of new technology, public diplomacy has taken a new turn and its value has become different. Whereas earlier a state would be concerned with its prestige in terms of power and courage, there seems to be more value placed on soft power issues and pursuing the right policies.
However, the branding of nation states must take a very fine line as there is a delicate balance between what can be perceived by foreign publics positively and what will be seen as propaganda. The Shared Values Initiative which was launched by the United States after the September 11 attacks, which included TV spots to be broadcast in the Middle East and other Muslim countries, was widely perceived in the targeted countries as propaganda. Hence, this initiative did nothing directly to improve the image of the United States in the Middle East, and according to Belinda Chan, the United States actually lost credibility and Anti-Americanism increased.
While the United States spent a lot of money and effort during the Cold War in order to convince foreign publics that liberal democracy and capitalism was preferable to communism, with the end of the Cold War the budget designated towards public diplomacy initiatives has dramatically decreased. According to Helena Finn, the policy makers in the United States during the Cold War had realised the importance of winning the hearts of foreign publics as means of winning the Cold War. However, with their response to the terrorist attacks on the United States, policy makers tend to have placed emphasis on military force in trying to win the ‘war on terror.’ If the people of Afghanistan and Iraq do not approve or identify with the values which the United States stands for and tries to impose on these countries, their effort to win the wars is unlikely to prove successful. Although the factors which play a role in influencing the image of countries abroad are increasingly out of control of central government institutions, efforts by government to promote their country positively abroad could prove to be decisive in influencing outcomes in world affairs. Even though the United States, or any other country, might not have a legitimate right to impose their will on another country using public diplomacy (propaganda) or military force, one tactic might work better in achieving their aims.
However, the branding of nation states must take a very fine line as there is a delicate balance between what can be perceived by foreign publics positively and what will be seen as propaganda. The Shared Values Initiative which was launched by the United States after the September 11 attacks, which included TV spots to be broadcast in the Middle East and other Muslim countries, was widely perceived in the targeted countries as propaganda. Hence, this initiative did nothing directly to improve the image of the United States in the Middle East, and according to Belinda Chan, the United States actually lost credibility and Anti-Americanism increased.
While the United States spent a lot of money and effort during the Cold War in order to convince foreign publics that liberal democracy and capitalism was preferable to communism, with the end of the Cold War the budget designated towards public diplomacy initiatives has dramatically decreased. According to Helena Finn, the policy makers in the United States during the Cold War had realised the importance of winning the hearts of foreign publics as means of winning the Cold War. However, with their response to the terrorist attacks on the United States, policy makers tend to have placed emphasis on military force in trying to win the ‘war on terror.’ If the people of Afghanistan and Iraq do not approve or identify with the values which the United States stands for and tries to impose on these countries, their effort to win the wars is unlikely to prove successful. Although the factors which play a role in influencing the image of countries abroad are increasingly out of control of central government institutions, efforts by government to promote their country positively abroad could prove to be decisive in influencing outcomes in world affairs. Even though the United States, or any other country, might not have a legitimate right to impose their will on another country using public diplomacy (propaganda) or military force, one tactic might work better in achieving their aims.
Saturday 21 March 2009
New aspects of new diplomacy
After the seminars discussions I think the first important aspect that new diplomacy contains is public diplomacy. Fast emergence of technological changes and continuous globalisation has made diplomacy more open and flexible towards public. Its deliberation on winning foreign public’s opinion and taking initiatives to spread the culture and language for a log term relationship is a new phenomenon among the nation’s diplomatic agendas. The diplomatic instruments are no longer just being used to attend ceremonies and address current disputes rather it has been emphasising more into building a long term relationship. In the age of information technology the exchanges of information and using propaganda method are significant to enrich the soft power capability for a states public diplomacy. Josheph Nye in his essay wielding soft power asserted ‘diplomacy aimed at public opinion can become as important to outcome as the traditional classified diplomatic communications among leader.’
Maintaining Public relation has become another key role for the diplomatic missions in the new era of modern Information and communications technology (ICT).’
Media plays a big role in publicising the public diplomacy. The summit and big conferences is easily being interrupted by the protesters because of the flexible and speedy communication between the organisers and the media. This new dynamics and components have emerged in diplomatic structure, process and agenda in twentieth century diplomacy. The address of Barrack Obama on 19th march 09 to Iranian government and its people is an example where we can see the aspects of new diplomacy. This address has been called direct diplomacy. We can see the elements of new diplomacy here addressing through video clip, addressing the people of Iran and media making it its headline. Within 48 hours of time the Supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini’s response to Obama’s offer. Publicising this call for a ‘new beginning’ with Iran is an example of the new dynanimc of new diplomacy. People from the whole world can see this diplomatic approach by a nation’s president to another nation’s public and government directly offering friendship and talking about issues concerning both country and the wider world. The intension to win the peoples opinion among the world and in their own country is an important responsibility that the diplomacy shoulders in new phenomenon of the public diplomacy.
New diplomacy’s another main characteristics is the rising influences by NGOs and the variety of non state actor’s e, g. religious actors, sub states units, international organisation, multinational corporations, terrorist rebel groups, celebrities etc in the diplomatic process. Recent arrest warrant for Sudan’s president Omar al bashir by international criminal court is an example of the raising different type of actors in international affairs. The Sudanese president in responded by expelling 10 major aid agencies from Sudan including revoking Oxfam’s registration. These are the new phenomenon that the new diplomacy has witnessed. Here ICC (international criminal court) and the expelled aid agency are such as Oxfam or The French medical aid organization MSF are new actors in international affairs. This is a new instruments that being used by either party. The US, France, great Britain all supporting the ICCs actions against Omar al Bashir and in response to this the diplomatic move that was made by Sudan was to expel NGOs from their country.
Conference diplomacy is another big feature of new diplomacy. The world has witnessed the great summits by the big nations to resolve the issues. The famous conference in Yalta in 1945 to resolve the post war disputes between united state, great Britain, and soviet union, the Vienna conference between John f Kennedy and Khrushchev or the summit that was held between Ronald Reagan and Gorbachev to end the cold war, these are the example of new diplomacy’s new method of resolving world affairs.
This give birth to an important question do the conference/ multilateral diplomacy suggest the demise of bilateral diplomacy? Former diplomat of India Kishan Rana asserted in his book inside diplomacy that the summit or conference is the high power, once in a while event, often the culmination of diplomatic effort, and dependant on that sustained activity for meaningful results. So the importance of bilateral interaction is never decreasing. To follow on the decisions agreed and for the implementation of the agreements require the each state continue to interact in one to one level. Nevertheless the conference diplomacy changed the process of negotiations and brought a new mode of diplomatic approach and it has immense importance in managing world affairs.
Maintaining Public relation has become another key role for the diplomatic missions in the new era of modern Information and communications technology (ICT).’
Media plays a big role in publicising the public diplomacy. The summit and big conferences is easily being interrupted by the protesters because of the flexible and speedy communication between the organisers and the media. This new dynamics and components have emerged in diplomatic structure, process and agenda in twentieth century diplomacy. The address of Barrack Obama on 19th march 09 to Iranian government and its people is an example where we can see the aspects of new diplomacy. This address has been called direct diplomacy. We can see the elements of new diplomacy here addressing through video clip, addressing the people of Iran and media making it its headline. Within 48 hours of time the Supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini’s response to Obama’s offer. Publicising this call for a ‘new beginning’ with Iran is an example of the new dynanimc of new diplomacy. People from the whole world can see this diplomatic approach by a nation’s president to another nation’s public and government directly offering friendship and talking about issues concerning both country and the wider world. The intension to win the peoples opinion among the world and in their own country is an important responsibility that the diplomacy shoulders in new phenomenon of the public diplomacy.
New diplomacy’s another main characteristics is the rising influences by NGOs and the variety of non state actor’s e, g. religious actors, sub states units, international organisation, multinational corporations, terrorist rebel groups, celebrities etc in the diplomatic process. Recent arrest warrant for Sudan’s president Omar al bashir by international criminal court is an example of the raising different type of actors in international affairs. The Sudanese president in responded by expelling 10 major aid agencies from Sudan including revoking Oxfam’s registration. These are the new phenomenon that the new diplomacy has witnessed. Here ICC (international criminal court) and the expelled aid agency are such as Oxfam or The French medical aid organization MSF are new actors in international affairs. This is a new instruments that being used by either party. The US, France, great Britain all supporting the ICCs actions against Omar al Bashir and in response to this the diplomatic move that was made by Sudan was to expel NGOs from their country.
Conference diplomacy is another big feature of new diplomacy. The world has witnessed the great summits by the big nations to resolve the issues. The famous conference in Yalta in 1945 to resolve the post war disputes between united state, great Britain, and soviet union, the Vienna conference between John f Kennedy and Khrushchev or the summit that was held between Ronald Reagan and Gorbachev to end the cold war, these are the example of new diplomacy’s new method of resolving world affairs.
This give birth to an important question do the conference/ multilateral diplomacy suggest the demise of bilateral diplomacy? Former diplomat of India Kishan Rana asserted in his book inside diplomacy that the summit or conference is the high power, once in a while event, often the culmination of diplomatic effort, and dependant on that sustained activity for meaningful results. So the importance of bilateral interaction is never decreasing. To follow on the decisions agreed and for the implementation of the agreements require the each state continue to interact in one to one level. Nevertheless the conference diplomacy changed the process of negotiations and brought a new mode of diplomatic approach and it has immense importance in managing world affairs.
The New Diplomacy
In this blog I will give my opinion on question: what is the most important aspect of New Diplomacy? At some points my opinion is similar with author Royce J. Ammon, therefore I would like to highlight some of these points. Ammon in his book Global Television and the Shaping of World Politics, argues that globalisation have affected the way diplomacy is conducted in three ways: “first, by displacing traditional methods; second, by increasing the diplomatic influence of non-traditional sectors; and third, by accelerating diplomacy’s pace.” Today`s diplomacy by Ammon is called “Telediplomacy” and argues that television plays significant role in shaping politics. Government`s eyes in this era is focused on mass media, simply because it is going on to many things all over the world, and it is not possible to rely only on own sources of information. Another complexity is brought by advanced telecommunications, that Diplomat`s public statements could have impact all over the world therefore public speeches should be carefully given, that would be acceptable for wide audience. As US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that officials speaking publically are speaking with five audiences at the same time (local, foreign, allies, enemies, etc.) And there is the point where comes most important aspect of New Diplomacy - Public Diplomacy, which seeks to give understanding about culture and values of particular state for people abroad. And this is the key to the long term security and stability. History showed us that lack of Public Diplomacy could lead to the disastrous events such as 9/11, which happened because of growing anti-American sentiments especially in the Middle East, and the most advanced military power in the world was not able stop this. Therefore most important aspect of New Diplomacy is Public Diplomacy.
Reflection on 'soft power', the use of culture & commerce inorder to obtain political ends
Whilst scanning through the 'news', I bumped into this interesting article which reflects on the topic of 'New Diplomacy and 'soft power'. It illustrates how Japan is making the best use of its 'soft power' (power of attraction) in order to obtain its (hidden) political objectives.
excerpted from:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090312/tod-oukoe-uk-japan-ambassadors-cute-cb1d00a.html (21/03/09)
Japan picks "schoolgirl" among cute ambassadors
Thursday, March 12 08:57 am Isabel Reynolds
Ever seen an ambassador dressed from head to foot in pastel frills? How about a diplomatic envoy in a mini-skirted school uniform?
In a bid to raise its international profile, Tokyo has appointed three young women as cultural envoys because they represent Japan's long-running craze for all things cute.
Inspired by the characters in Japan's distinctive "anime" animated films and "manga" cartoon books, one of the new ambassadors dresses as a schoolgirl, another as a Victorian doll in voluminous frilly skirts.
The third of the women, presented at a news conference on Thursday, was a singer dressed in a polka dot shirt with a bunny print, offset by bouffant back-combed hair, a look that has made her a fashion leader in Tokyo teens' favourite haunt, Harajuku.
Japan wants to exploit the popularity of the "kawaii" (cute) culture, which has influenced young people in Asia and Europe.
"It's all about mutual understanding," said Tsutomu Nakagawa, the head of the cultural affairs division at the Foreign Ministry, after presenting the three envoys to the foreign media.
"We want people abroad to know these kind of people exist in Japan and to feel close to them."
Faced with the prospect of being overtaken in both economic and military might by giant neighbour China, Japan has been making concerted efforts to boost its "soft power," a strategy that analysts see as important.
"You get people to love your culture and use that as a way of gaining power around the world," said Phil Deans, professor of international relations at Temple University's Tokyo campus.
"America has a lot of soft power, because people like American culture."
But these ambassadors, whose role will be to speak at cultural events such as a Japan Expo to be held in Paris in July, may have narrower appeal than Hollywood movie stars.
The envoys, chosen for the clothes they choose to wear in their everyday lives, said they believed their styles would last.
"Every female from small girls to grandmothers loves pretty clothes," said nurse and part-time model Misako Aoki, now ambassador for the doll-like "Gothic Lolita" style.
"I think I can continue to dress like this all my life. Age has nothing to do with it."
Actress Shizuka Fujioka, 19, wears a school uniform even though she's graduated because she felt she missed out by going to a school with an ugly uniform.
The appointment of the three envoys comes a year after Doraemon, a rotund blue cartoon cat with no ears, was named a special ambassador.
While serving as foreign minister, manga fan Prime Minister Taro Aso also launched an international prize for the genre.
"Whether this is a strategy on which the world's second largest economy can base its diplomacy, I have yet to be convinced," said Temple University's Deans.
(Editing by Rodney Joyce)
excerpted from:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090312/tod-oukoe-uk-japan-ambassadors-cute-cb1d00a.html (21/03/09)
Japan picks "schoolgirl" among cute ambassadors
Thursday, March 12 08:57 am Isabel Reynolds
Ever seen an ambassador dressed from head to foot in pastel frills? How about a diplomatic envoy in a mini-skirted school uniform?
In a bid to raise its international profile, Tokyo has appointed three young women as cultural envoys because they represent Japan's long-running craze for all things cute.
Inspired by the characters in Japan's distinctive "anime" animated films and "manga" cartoon books, one of the new ambassadors dresses as a schoolgirl, another as a Victorian doll in voluminous frilly skirts.
The third of the women, presented at a news conference on Thursday, was a singer dressed in a polka dot shirt with a bunny print, offset by bouffant back-combed hair, a look that has made her a fashion leader in Tokyo teens' favourite haunt, Harajuku.
Japan wants to exploit the popularity of the "kawaii" (cute) culture, which has influenced young people in Asia and Europe.
"It's all about mutual understanding," said Tsutomu Nakagawa, the head of the cultural affairs division at the Foreign Ministry, after presenting the three envoys to the foreign media.
"We want people abroad to know these kind of people exist in Japan and to feel close to them."
Faced with the prospect of being overtaken in both economic and military might by giant neighbour China, Japan has been making concerted efforts to boost its "soft power," a strategy that analysts see as important.
"You get people to love your culture and use that as a way of gaining power around the world," said Phil Deans, professor of international relations at Temple University's Tokyo campus.
"America has a lot of soft power, because people like American culture."
But these ambassadors, whose role will be to speak at cultural events such as a Japan Expo to be held in Paris in July, may have narrower appeal than Hollywood movie stars.
The envoys, chosen for the clothes they choose to wear in their everyday lives, said they believed their styles would last.
"Every female from small girls to grandmothers loves pretty clothes," said nurse and part-time model Misako Aoki, now ambassador for the doll-like "Gothic Lolita" style.
"I think I can continue to dress like this all my life. Age has nothing to do with it."
Actress Shizuka Fujioka, 19, wears a school uniform even though she's graduated because she felt she missed out by going to a school with an ugly uniform.
The appointment of the three envoys comes a year after Doraemon, a rotund blue cartoon cat with no ears, was named a special ambassador.
While serving as foreign minister, manga fan Prime Minister Taro Aso also launched an international prize for the genre.
"Whether this is a strategy on which the world's second largest economy can base its diplomacy, I have yet to be convinced," said Temple University's Deans.
(Editing by Rodney Joyce)
Friday 20 March 2009
Visit to the Danish Embassy
We had a very stimulating visit to the Danish embassy this morning. Thank you to Anne and her colleagues for giving us an insight into how Denmark structures its diplomatic service and how it is responding to the challenges posed by globalisation.It was great to get practitioners' perspectives on the continuing importance of the embassy for cementing relations between fellow EU member states and to learn about how the embassy promotes Danish culture by working with partners in Britain.
The visit helped us to place some of the themes of our module in a concrete setting and provided illustrations to add some colour and content to our reading lists.
Finally, a big thank you to Sophie for setting up this opportunity for us.
The New Diplomacy
The New Diplomacy: Following the discussions seminars 5 and 7,
in your opinion what is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy?
New diplomacy differs from the old system of the diplomatic practice in a number of respects. It refers to the diplomatic talk among more than two states, usually happening through conferences and different international forums.
It is described as a tool helping to discuss so called ‘low politics’ and also many other issues that would normally not be discussed by the states on bilateral basis because it is actually multilateral diplomacy that brings attention to international or better sais global issues such as environment, trade, health and many others.
The last aspect is that it is believed to be open to public scrutiny. It was Woodrow Wilson who came with the idea that diplomacy needs to be open and accessible to the public so that the agreements and treaties are available to anybody. He banned ‘secret diplomacy’ wherein it was nothing surprising if treaties included secret deals of states.
In my point of view the most important aspect of the whole notion is the fact that multilateral diplomacy puts a number of states together and creates a space for international discussion. In any conference it is a big opportunity for states to confront each other with their own opinions and see different interests and attitudes of the actors because seeing the situation clearly helps to reach a solution to some of the global problems. It is more practical to simply organize a forum for a large group of states rather than try to reach an agreement on some issues through several bilateral meetings.
Another advantage of the practice is, as already mentioned above, the tendency to look at global issues. Walker argues that if not by using conference diplomacy, states would never come to talk about broader controversies because it is the diplomacy that raises such issues and makes states consider them and reach agreements of them. If these are agreed on as standards then states usually apply them and implement the policies on the national level in their domestic policies which clearly helps to make difference from the bottom.
Thirdly, international organizations and institutions that give space for talks sometimes create international programs that focus on particular policy in some area. Because more states are involved in them it can increase the affectivity of these programs. It also catches the media attention as conferences are depicted as important for international political stage. Mass media coverage helps to keep the public informed and thanks to reports right from the spot shapes the public opinion.
My next point is that even though some analysts argue that multilateral diplomacy is ineffective and wasteful because it does not necessarily ends up with the result of agreement my point is that it is a good thing that multilateral talk does not have to bring a result of agreement or a disagreement as oppositely to bilateral diplomacy. More states are involved and certainly every one of them has its own interests and agenda and does not want to compromise on issues so logically it makes the whole process longer and harder to come to some resolution. The positive aspect of it is that it is not wasteful to exchange information and experience about the discussed policies although the decision is not reaches immediately. It lets states interact with each other which is essential in order to come to possible compromises.
Overall even when it might seem that multilateral diplomacy is not that quick in changing the policies and the behaviour of states it brings a lot of opportunities and indirect politics making possibilities.
in your opinion what is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy?
New diplomacy differs from the old system of the diplomatic practice in a number of respects. It refers to the diplomatic talk among more than two states, usually happening through conferences and different international forums.
It is described as a tool helping to discuss so called ‘low politics’ and also many other issues that would normally not be discussed by the states on bilateral basis because it is actually multilateral diplomacy that brings attention to international or better sais global issues such as environment, trade, health and many others.
The last aspect is that it is believed to be open to public scrutiny. It was Woodrow Wilson who came with the idea that diplomacy needs to be open and accessible to the public so that the agreements and treaties are available to anybody. He banned ‘secret diplomacy’ wherein it was nothing surprising if treaties included secret deals of states.
In my point of view the most important aspect of the whole notion is the fact that multilateral diplomacy puts a number of states together and creates a space for international discussion. In any conference it is a big opportunity for states to confront each other with their own opinions and see different interests and attitudes of the actors because seeing the situation clearly helps to reach a solution to some of the global problems. It is more practical to simply organize a forum for a large group of states rather than try to reach an agreement on some issues through several bilateral meetings.
Another advantage of the practice is, as already mentioned above, the tendency to look at global issues. Walker argues that if not by using conference diplomacy, states would never come to talk about broader controversies because it is the diplomacy that raises such issues and makes states consider them and reach agreements of them. If these are agreed on as standards then states usually apply them and implement the policies on the national level in their domestic policies which clearly helps to make difference from the bottom.
Thirdly, international organizations and institutions that give space for talks sometimes create international programs that focus on particular policy in some area. Because more states are involved in them it can increase the affectivity of these programs. It also catches the media attention as conferences are depicted as important for international political stage. Mass media coverage helps to keep the public informed and thanks to reports right from the spot shapes the public opinion.
My next point is that even though some analysts argue that multilateral diplomacy is ineffective and wasteful because it does not necessarily ends up with the result of agreement my point is that it is a good thing that multilateral talk does not have to bring a result of agreement or a disagreement as oppositely to bilateral diplomacy. More states are involved and certainly every one of them has its own interests and agenda and does not want to compromise on issues so logically it makes the whole process longer and harder to come to some resolution. The positive aspect of it is that it is not wasteful to exchange information and experience about the discussed policies although the decision is not reaches immediately. It lets states interact with each other which is essential in order to come to possible compromises.
Overall even when it might seem that multilateral diplomacy is not that quick in changing the policies and the behaviour of states it brings a lot of opportunities and indirect politics making possibilities.
Tuesday 17 March 2009
Sir Nicholas Henderson
The United Kingdom's ambassador to the United States at the time of the Falklands War in 1982, who did a highly successful job of winning American support for the military campaign to eject Argentina from the islands, died on Monday. Today's Guardian carries an extensive obituary which is well worth ten minutes of your time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/17/obituary-sir-nicholas-henderson
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/17/obituary-sir-nicholas-henderson
Saturday 14 March 2009
'Public Diplomacy'
Just as one is concerned over aesthetic appearances and ‘first impression’, so do 'states' care about their charms and reputations in relations to foreign perceptions. For states, the ‘attractiveness’ is not purely materialistic, but rather a fusion of ideas, attitudes and tastes. Public diplomacy (PD), also known as ‘the new diplomacy’, is a diplomatic relation and cultivation mode, obtained via ‘attractive’ processes labelled by Joseph Nye as, ‘soft power’. Soft power is the ability to get desired outcomes by way of attracting and persuading foreign hearts and minds, rather than by use of coercive ‘hard power’.
According to Nye, a state’s 'soft power' derives from three main assets: its culture; political ideas, and its foreign policies. It can be argues that culture, as well as, language, social traditions and religion, are in every respect the ‘glue’ that holds society intact; precisely what Samuel P. Huntington defined to be as key differences which distinguishes one civilization to the next. These values are integrated in state’s soft power tactic. Public diplomacy chief objective is to influence and adjust the foreign publics’ interpretation and perception of one’s status (state).
Alternatively, as Jan Melissen claims, PD is an affair involving the practices of ‘propaganda, nation-branding and foreign cultural relations’.
‘Propaganda’ upon first glance is most likely to suggest the handling of data manipulation and misrepresentation. However, as far as PD is concerned, such subversive activities are incompatible, since PD’s principle stands at the opposite pole to one which, deliberately attempts to influence the opinions of others via the distributions in form of cocktail-of-ideas, consciously formulated to serve the interest of specific leaders.On the contrary, PD deals with cultural relations and exchange programmes; it aims to actively engage with foreign publics rather than selling them a package of messages. Essences of this contemporary form of diplomatic-conduct, is that it strives to establish durable ties, as opposed to policy-oriented struggles for short-term interests.Moreover, today’s interconnected-world, the shrinkage of ‘space and time’ has enhanced PD’s ‘cause’.
As Mette Lending (in Melissen, 2007: 22) suggests.
'...cultural exchange is not only ‘art’ and ‘culture’, but also communicating a country’s thinking, research, journalism and national debate'.
Therefore, PD mirrors the different changes varying from: communication technologies, transportation, spreading of ideas, and the process of globalization as a whole. PD can be seen as an 'amplifier' od common pursuits, varying from: human rights, democratic values, good governance, significance role of the media in the civil society and so fort. So long as a country's culture incorporates a relative amount of universal values, and its foreign policies promotes values and interests shared by others, the likelihood of its PD's achieving desired ends will for always stand high; this is principally due to the relationships of 'attraction' and duty that it carries (Nye, S. J., 2004: 11). Thus, PD (indirectly) step-by-steps, in a harmonious and attractive manner, sells the country's 'qualities', resulting in it to expand the status quo. Alternatively, one can look at PD as an instrument similar to that of 'sales tactics', whereby- eye candies (or attention-drawing items are used) are employed in order to attract clients, and ultimately, popularity.
Public diplomacy’s imperative feature may perhaps be the requirement which it demands such as broad-skills, attitudes, personalities, charm, unique abilities which produce a sense of distinctiveness. Together they represent PD’s 360° rareness, which differs from the traditional form of diplomacy. New diplomacy is an instrument exercised in order to alter the way in which a ‘state’ is being perceived. Through moderate application of ‘soft power’ preferably in an eye-catching manner, states are capable to slowly re-align perceptions and reaction in foreign lands.
Particular devotions are made in order to ‘understand’ foreign: attitudes, cultures, and societal values; to observe how foreign presses ‘frames’ certain news ‘events’ and ‘issues’ to its public audiences.
However, public diplomacy is not an instrument of ‘daily’ use. Generally such soft power approach is sought when government design specific agendas, and its method of explaining ‘threats’ and ‘opportunities’. In America’s terms, PD is ‘strategic communication’, it highlights on the aim to ‘get the message across’ in such way that it concords with the sender’s original objective.
One may pose the question of whether ‘new diplomacy’ represents a form of official ‘diplomatic affairs’, or if it merely serves as an apparatus used in order to render the ‘harsh’ i.e. foreign policy more charming and sell-able?
According to Nye, a state’s 'soft power' derives from three main assets: its culture; political ideas, and its foreign policies. It can be argues that culture, as well as, language, social traditions and religion, are in every respect the ‘glue’ that holds society intact; precisely what Samuel P. Huntington defined to be as key differences which distinguishes one civilization to the next. These values are integrated in state’s soft power tactic. Public diplomacy chief objective is to influence and adjust the foreign publics’ interpretation and perception of one’s status (state).
Alternatively, as Jan Melissen claims, PD is an affair involving the practices of ‘propaganda, nation-branding and foreign cultural relations’.
‘Propaganda’ upon first glance is most likely to suggest the handling of data manipulation and misrepresentation. However, as far as PD is concerned, such subversive activities are incompatible, since PD’s principle stands at the opposite pole to one which, deliberately attempts to influence the opinions of others via the distributions in form of cocktail-of-ideas, consciously formulated to serve the interest of specific leaders.On the contrary, PD deals with cultural relations and exchange programmes; it aims to actively engage with foreign publics rather than selling them a package of messages. Essences of this contemporary form of diplomatic-conduct, is that it strives to establish durable ties, as opposed to policy-oriented struggles for short-term interests.Moreover, today’s interconnected-world, the shrinkage of ‘space and time’ has enhanced PD’s ‘cause’.
As Mette Lending (in Melissen, 2007: 22) suggests.
'...cultural exchange is not only ‘art’ and ‘culture’, but also communicating a country’s thinking, research, journalism and national debate'.
Therefore, PD mirrors the different changes varying from: communication technologies, transportation, spreading of ideas, and the process of globalization as a whole. PD can be seen as an 'amplifier' od common pursuits, varying from: human rights, democratic values, good governance, significance role of the media in the civil society and so fort. So long as a country's culture incorporates a relative amount of universal values, and its foreign policies promotes values and interests shared by others, the likelihood of its PD's achieving desired ends will for always stand high; this is principally due to the relationships of 'attraction' and duty that it carries (Nye, S. J., 2004: 11). Thus, PD (indirectly) step-by-steps, in a harmonious and attractive manner, sells the country's 'qualities', resulting in it to expand the status quo. Alternatively, one can look at PD as an instrument similar to that of 'sales tactics', whereby- eye candies (or attention-drawing items are used) are employed in order to attract clients, and ultimately, popularity.
Public diplomacy’s imperative feature may perhaps be the requirement which it demands such as broad-skills, attitudes, personalities, charm, unique abilities which produce a sense of distinctiveness. Together they represent PD’s 360° rareness, which differs from the traditional form of diplomacy. New diplomacy is an instrument exercised in order to alter the way in which a ‘state’ is being perceived. Through moderate application of ‘soft power’ preferably in an eye-catching manner, states are capable to slowly re-align perceptions and reaction in foreign lands.
Particular devotions are made in order to ‘understand’ foreign: attitudes, cultures, and societal values; to observe how foreign presses ‘frames’ certain news ‘events’ and ‘issues’ to its public audiences.
However, public diplomacy is not an instrument of ‘daily’ use. Generally such soft power approach is sought when government design specific agendas, and its method of explaining ‘threats’ and ‘opportunities’. In America’s terms, PD is ‘strategic communication’, it highlights on the aim to ‘get the message across’ in such way that it concords with the sender’s original objective.
One may pose the question of whether ‘new diplomacy’ represents a form of official ‘diplomatic affairs’, or if it merely serves as an apparatus used in order to render the ‘harsh’ i.e. foreign policy more charming and sell-able?
Wednesday 11 March 2009
Traditional or 'Old' Diplomacy
The characteristic features of Traditional or ‘Old’ diplomacy can be evaluated by analyzing its structure, process and agenda. In its structure, traditional diplomacy constituted an interaction between two modern states rather than between other forms of political entities like, for example, the Catholic Church. As the relations between states flourished, the interactions between them were held on a regular basis. This communication process was conducted by diplomats who were sent abroad to act on behalf of their states. As a result, the use of diplomats was institutionalized. In other words, institutions having a main purview of diplomacy emerged. This led to the end of the practice of diplomacy being conducted by ad hoc representatives.
In its process, Traditional or ‘Old’ diplomacy was conducted mostly on a bilateral basis and the whole process was commonly shrouded in secrecy. The issues of mutual concern between two states were undertaken by professional diplomats based at home and abroad in their permanent embassies. Unless one state coerced the other to accept a position, mutual agreement was a way of settling any disputes. In order to maintain a strategic edge in the negotiations over the other state, each state kept the interactions as secret as possible. This maintenance of secrecy was made possible due to limiting the diplomacy to a bilateral level.
The agenda of the Traditional diplomacy is considered to be narrow as compared with later periods. The traditional diplomatic agenda reflected the expansionist ideas and personal ambition e.g., the acquisition of territory, of the heads of states or monarchs. The general issues of war and peace also constituted an important part of the diplomatic agenda.
There are certain features in the structure, process and agenda of Traditional or ‘Old’ diplomacy that have become outmoded. The most notable change in its structure was that the states had to share the international stage with other non-state actors such international organizations engaged in diplomacy like the U.N. etc. The states no longer were the only actors involved.
The changes in the process of Traditional or ‘Old’ diplomacy took place in the manner in which it was conducted. Due to a popular demand, discussions between states were held in a more open and transparent manner. The public sentiment was reflected in the diplomacy now conducted.
The changing process of Traditional diplomacy also involved the changing nature of international activity. States continued to negotiate bilaterally with each other on a state to state basis but groups of states typically negotiated multilaterally under the patronage of organizations like the United Nations.
Like the structure and process, the agenda of Traditional diplomacy also underwent changes. Most noteworthy of these changes was that the international activity involving negotiations between states reflected the states’ changing scope of activities, which now involved their concern for the social and economic well-being of their citizens. The communications between states no longer constituted mainly the security of their citizens, the traditional diplomatic agenda.
In its process, Traditional or ‘Old’ diplomacy was conducted mostly on a bilateral basis and the whole process was commonly shrouded in secrecy. The issues of mutual concern between two states were undertaken by professional diplomats based at home and abroad in their permanent embassies. Unless one state coerced the other to accept a position, mutual agreement was a way of settling any disputes. In order to maintain a strategic edge in the negotiations over the other state, each state kept the interactions as secret as possible. This maintenance of secrecy was made possible due to limiting the diplomacy to a bilateral level.
The agenda of the Traditional diplomacy is considered to be narrow as compared with later periods. The traditional diplomatic agenda reflected the expansionist ideas and personal ambition e.g., the acquisition of territory, of the heads of states or monarchs. The general issues of war and peace also constituted an important part of the diplomatic agenda.
There are certain features in the structure, process and agenda of Traditional or ‘Old’ diplomacy that have become outmoded. The most notable change in its structure was that the states had to share the international stage with other non-state actors such international organizations engaged in diplomacy like the U.N. etc. The states no longer were the only actors involved.
The changes in the process of Traditional or ‘Old’ diplomacy took place in the manner in which it was conducted. Due to a popular demand, discussions between states were held in a more open and transparent manner. The public sentiment was reflected in the diplomacy now conducted.
The changing process of Traditional diplomacy also involved the changing nature of international activity. States continued to negotiate bilaterally with each other on a state to state basis but groups of states typically negotiated multilaterally under the patronage of organizations like the United Nations.
Like the structure and process, the agenda of Traditional diplomacy also underwent changes. Most noteworthy of these changes was that the international activity involving negotiations between states reflected the states’ changing scope of activities, which now involved their concern for the social and economic well-being of their citizens. The communications between states no longer constituted mainly the security of their citizens, the traditional diplomatic agenda.
Tuesday 3 March 2009
The old diplomacy...
What are your impressions of the ‘old’ diplomacy? Has it become outmoded?
Diplomacy is a very ancient concept and can be traced back to the 12th century. However, there are some misconception about what it means, as it can often be mistaken for diplomatic history and therefore related more to foreign relations historically between countries rather than a process of maintaining and nurturing important relationships. We learnt that the ‘’old’’ diplomacy was secretive, often involved exclusive actors e.g. people of royal blood, and focused on high politics issues such as weaponry, the acquisition of land, threats from other countries, and matters of trade and economics. The answer to this question lies in what I have just said above. No, old diplomacy has not become outmoded because all of the processes involved in diplomacy still exist today, some at a larger scale, such as the issue of trade, weaponry and the economy, some at a much smaller scale, such as royal envoys. When these matters are not part of the political agenda of diplomats anymore then we can say that the old diplomatic methods have become outmoded and we have moved on to the new world order. There has been a history of optimism about the ‘new world’ since the beginning of the industrial revolution and has continued to flourish despite the gruesome modern wars. As an idealist myself, I can completely understand the desire to completely move away from anything which is shrouded in Imperialism and Eurocentric colonialist ambitions, but the realist take would be that so long as there is military and warfare in the world, the issue of war and peace will continue, and old diplomacy methods will continue. This is for a number of reasons, which I will highlight below
A) A complete departure away from the methods of old diplomacy suggest that all countries are on good terms with each other and that there is a mutual understanding among countries that diplomacy should be conducted openly, internationally, and involve not just high political issues but humanitarian issues too. In class today we already heard that this is not possible because not all ‘’states’’ are given that recognition and respect internationally. Very rarely would a Middle Eastern government have open diplomatic relations with Israel, and very rarely would a Western government treat an authoritarian leader of a developing country in this regard. The world never reached perfect communism and it is unlikely to do so under the promoted capitalist/secularist/democratic ideal of the 21st century. A Western leader doing business or conducting foreign relations with a dictator has to do it in secret. A powerful country might not negotiate a small developing country with the same conditions it would negotiate another powerful country. Since there is no shortage of corrupt politicians or developing countries, the methods of the old diplomacy will continue.
B) The old diplomacy IS the new diplomacy (at least part of it). Yes, even White agreed that supposed ‘’new’’ forms of diplomacy have long been rooted in diplomatic relations between countries.
C) Do countries still feel a need to protect their territory and independence?
Do the leaders of states hide information from the public? (think for example, the United States, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq, United Kingdom)
Does the royal family still have significance in Western states?
Do diplomats and foreign embassies themselves place great values on humanitarian issues or is it more the pressure and influence on non state actors on those officials and the public?
Are countries still building up their military and weapons?
If you have agreed with any of the above, then you have just agreed that traditional diplomatic methods have not become extinct/outmoded.
Even though the idea that traditional diplomatic methods have become outmoded now seems quite euphoric, there still is hope. Despite the fact that most of the world is still developing, do not have populations well cared for and represented by their governments, and wars are still occurring (illegally) the Western world (mainly..) have set a new standard for the international community to follow. They have tried to make their dialogue and communication between states as open to the public as possible, have legitimate news sources such as BBC world, Euro news, and CNN international (to a certain extent), they continually address socio-political-economic issues at a human level, and try to ensure that they only associate publicly with states that have civilized governments. Still, diplomacy is going through and will continue to go through a huge overhaul in the coming years as international security, the economy, technology, scientific developments, education, and law, become increasingly important subjects in diplomatic discussions.
Mais.
Diplomacy is a very ancient concept and can be traced back to the 12th century. However, there are some misconception about what it means, as it can often be mistaken for diplomatic history and therefore related more to foreign relations historically between countries rather than a process of maintaining and nurturing important relationships. We learnt that the ‘’old’’ diplomacy was secretive, often involved exclusive actors e.g. people of royal blood, and focused on high politics issues such as weaponry, the acquisition of land, threats from other countries, and matters of trade and economics. The answer to this question lies in what I have just said above. No, old diplomacy has not become outmoded because all of the processes involved in diplomacy still exist today, some at a larger scale, such as the issue of trade, weaponry and the economy, some at a much smaller scale, such as royal envoys. When these matters are not part of the political agenda of diplomats anymore then we can say that the old diplomatic methods have become outmoded and we have moved on to the new world order. There has been a history of optimism about the ‘new world’ since the beginning of the industrial revolution and has continued to flourish despite the gruesome modern wars. As an idealist myself, I can completely understand the desire to completely move away from anything which is shrouded in Imperialism and Eurocentric colonialist ambitions, but the realist take would be that so long as there is military and warfare in the world, the issue of war and peace will continue, and old diplomacy methods will continue. This is for a number of reasons, which I will highlight below
A) A complete departure away from the methods of old diplomacy suggest that all countries are on good terms with each other and that there is a mutual understanding among countries that diplomacy should be conducted openly, internationally, and involve not just high political issues but humanitarian issues too. In class today we already heard that this is not possible because not all ‘’states’’ are given that recognition and respect internationally. Very rarely would a Middle Eastern government have open diplomatic relations with Israel, and very rarely would a Western government treat an authoritarian leader of a developing country in this regard. The world never reached perfect communism and it is unlikely to do so under the promoted capitalist/secularist/democratic ideal of the 21st century. A Western leader doing business or conducting foreign relations with a dictator has to do it in secret. A powerful country might not negotiate a small developing country with the same conditions it would negotiate another powerful country. Since there is no shortage of corrupt politicians or developing countries, the methods of the old diplomacy will continue.
B) The old diplomacy IS the new diplomacy (at least part of it). Yes, even White agreed that supposed ‘’new’’ forms of diplomacy have long been rooted in diplomatic relations between countries.
C) Do countries still feel a need to protect their territory and independence?
Do the leaders of states hide information from the public? (think for example, the United States, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq, United Kingdom)
Does the royal family still have significance in Western states?
Do diplomats and foreign embassies themselves place great values on humanitarian issues or is it more the pressure and influence on non state actors on those officials and the public?
Are countries still building up their military and weapons?
If you have agreed with any of the above, then you have just agreed that traditional diplomatic methods have not become extinct/outmoded.
Even though the idea that traditional diplomatic methods have become outmoded now seems quite euphoric, there still is hope. Despite the fact that most of the world is still developing, do not have populations well cared for and represented by their governments, and wars are still occurring (illegally) the Western world (mainly..) have set a new standard for the international community to follow. They have tried to make their dialogue and communication between states as open to the public as possible, have legitimate news sources such as BBC world, Euro news, and CNN international (to a certain extent), they continually address socio-political-economic issues at a human level, and try to ensure that they only associate publicly with states that have civilized governments. Still, diplomacy is going through and will continue to go through a huge overhaul in the coming years as international security, the economy, technology, scientific developments, education, and law, become increasingly important subjects in diplomatic discussions.
Mais.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
