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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.