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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From the semninar discussions, on week 5-7, my opinion on the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is on Multilateral Diplomacy.
ReplyDeleteFirst it involves several states in contrast to bilateral diplomacy which is conducted on a bilateral basis. (UN where there is a general assembly constituted of all states in the international system).
It does not only compries states but also embraces other entities,that is a variety of non state actors such as NGOs, and the relations between states and non state actors has been labelled polylateral diplomacy by Wiseman.
It is concerned with broader range os issues, not only issues of high politics such as security but rather low politics issues such as economic welfare, trade, environment, arms control and so on which result in treaty making over these issues and its more open to public scrutiny and control, though secrecy is needed in this type of diplomacy, though less than in traditional doplomacy.
And another good importance of multilateral diplomacy is the rules of procedure. For instance in the United Nations, there are 185 delegations that have to communicate with each other at the same time, therefore, there must be some rather clear and strict rules to maintain orderly interactions.
The process of multilateral negotiations consists of two stages, exploratory, as the initial stage and treaty –making as the highest stage.
On conclusion, multilateral diplomacy has been the most important aspect in new diplomacy because of its sophisticated methods and techniques that have been developed in multilateralism to cope with extensive diplomatic interactions, In the United nations and other multilateral fora, there is an official hierarchy of committees and sub-committees and semi-official system of groups of states foemed on the basis of geographic or economic proximity. For example, there are the groups of African, latin American and Arab states, the EU states or the Group of 77 developing countries which actually comprises more than one hundred states.
Bearing in mind Stanford's opinions on the significance of 'Multilateral Diplomacy' in relations to New Diplomacy, I wish to point out how such international gatherings and summits are to some extent 'diverting' state's foucus on their domestic politics.
ReplyDeleteThe explosive growth of summitry and international diplomatic events in recent past has created a diplomatic popularity which has a price of its own.
What I intend to say, is that fact that all diplomatic events (attended by at an international degree + saturated media/press presence) carries relative 'burdens' on leaders (physically) as well as on their agenda.
Moreover, such 'events' are no longer attended 'exclusively' by diplomats, state's representatives, head of states, various national ministers (i.e. finance minister/foreign minister/agricultural minister and so fort), but as both Hague and Standford correctly put forward, are the increasing numbers of NGOs representatives and International Organization members.
All in all, regular international gatherings by political elites & delegations creates a 'fatigue' which may come at the price of domestic politics.
Since these international gatherings appear to occur ever so often, as we speak, politicians are routinely on their feet, scheduled to attend the nemerous conferences etc. This overwhelming engagement abroad is automatically 'diverting' politician's priority from their 'domestic-daily-chores' (national politics and providing the needs of the public at large) to 'international venues.
Only in SOS or a crisis in the domestic affairs will politicians promptly cancel their international schedules.
Is this good though?
Although 'it is always good to meet', at the same time it does not mean that, 'meeting often' will generate positive and pleasing substance outcomes on every occasion.
ICTs and media services are growing at an unprecedented pace, and are being ever so sophisticated in their nature. Events/news/crisis/conflicts are being 'broadcasted-live' on TV.
Don't you think that (statesmen and political actors) such limelight is adored by these elite, in a way that the 'spotlight' contribute to his/her PR/image building/reputation enhancement?
From one perspective, one can regard these international gatherings as 'staged events', and more astonishing is the fact that the 'media' plays a greater role in reporting the events. It has become more like a diplomatic version of the red-carpet.
The media does not broadcast the essential/agreements and 'substance outcome' of which such event has generated. The press and the meedia, as well as, spin-doctors all work in collaborations to manipulate certain 'facts' in order to inject a 'certain impression/interpretation' by the public audiences at home.
I agree with Sara to a certain extent that the red carpeting of diplomacy and building one individuals reputation are some elements that distract the politicians from concentrating on hteir domestic affairs.
ReplyDeletenevertheless i stongly believe that this is eneivitable fact that when different representitive comes in an international arena they would compete with each other in performing paersonal chharishma on behalf of their country.
I said to an certain extent because in the 21st century international affairs are very important for an state and no matter what is the domestic situation if a country cannot keepup their internationl commitmetn of relation they might face some consequence that could be more severe then a domestic crisis.
After the emergence modern state we have witnessed the development of foreign offices and the imporatance that it attained from its respective government. thre are other departments dedicated to look after the domestic affairs, so i dont blame the officials if they attend many conferences and buld their relations with other countries and focus on varietis of issues. so please sara be kind !!!
Roger that.
ReplyDelete