The New Diplomacy

Important issues concerning the development of diplomacy

What do we think when we view diplomacy?...
Do we see it as a bilateral process performed in secrecy, shrouded in personal gains and motives, or do we see open congress and meetings whose information is free to the public and who discuss matters of international importance?
Do we think of diplomats as corrupt and guilty of abusing power, or do we see Diplomats as a form of humanitarian envoy, dedicated to meeting the needs of its own people as well as the international community?
In this article, we have been asked to examine the nature, as well as the development of diplomacy, and essentially making a statement on our impressions of the nature of diplomacy seems to be affected greatly by which part of the map we come from. Reading other students blogs about diplomacy has broadened my personal view of diplomacy, previously, I would have argued that with the increased technology, communication, and overall globalization of the world, diplomats are fast losing their power and influence that they used to have but this view has now been altered from my more Eurocentric view, and I definitely agree that diplomats are essential, not just as our ‘’safe keepers’’ in host countries but also to discuss a wide range of issues and human rights violations in developing countries and to be a formal voice of the people from their home country.
The development of diplomacy you could argue is a much more complicated and intricate procedure, involving different branches of diplomacy that started from the 12th century to diplomacy how we define it today. Personally, I see diplomacy in a similar way as a child, in his early stages; he can perform the basic functions that are needed, to communicate, to protect his territory, and to form certain important relations. As he grows up, he learns to communicate better, understand the needs of those people around him and be more considerate to those needs. . But because this process offcourse involves human beings as the main actors, the system will never be perfect, and we should be aware of that. Despite this, diplomacy is now at the stage where it is ‘’ripe’’ and even though some may argue that leaders are not concerned,
This chapter starts off stating that diplomacy is a ''key process of communication and negotiation with world actors'' which articulates well what the role of diplomacy today is concerning the concerning the international political community, but after reading Whites chapter it is clear that Diplomacy has evolved from its early stages where you could argue that it was much more ceremonial, diplomats bore a title much like a king or a prime minister would, you could say that it was a form of elitism, and that the diplomats, often performing in secrecy, would often be more concerned with personal motives, such as regional political threats, acquiring more land and as Brian White states in his chapter, it was ''highly personalized''. In contrast, one could argue that the new diplomacy is highly personalised, with more demand for public scrutiny and control. Political leaders and diplomats, more than ever, are facing pressure to bring up important social, political, and economical issues related to the problems of the home or host country. We see this everyday, for example, when Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao arrived in London to meet with Gordon Brown, there were Tibetan protests outside of the Chinese embassy, symbolizing the embassies role as a direct representation of China and its political motives and beliefs.
The world has changed since the 12th century and therefore diplomacy has changed to in order to accommodate those needs. Non state actors such as NGOs and transnational corporation are having a big part to say about formerly political and economic issues restricted to world leaders, and White refers to this as a ‘’process of negotiation’’. This process of negotiation has widened the dimensions of diplomacy and put more pressure on important issues from all sides. Something which we could ask ourselves is how different would the world be today if the diplomats from the 17th and 18th centuries had listened to their industrial leaders? Would it be any different at all? The new actors involved in international politics and diplomacy made it harder for it to be shrouded in secrecy, not because diplomats had suddenly become more open, but because with so many different actors involved, it became harder to keep a secret. This could have a deeper meaning in the international political arena: Even if our leaders don’t want to change, the changing nature of the world will force them to. This brings, at the very least, some much needed hope.
Off course, Whites dedicates some of its inches in this chapter of diplomacy to after the cold war. It is interesting to see that in these interwar periods, such as between World War 1 and 2, and after the Cold War, liberalist and idealistic ideas shoot up completely disproportionately to the relatively more peaceful international community. As white says himself ‘’it raised popular expectation about what might be achieved by diplomacy and negotiation’’.
‘’since the end of the cold war, the specific concerns of development diplomacy, have acquired a much higher profile position in global diplomacy’’. The bickering of East-West relations was finally put to rest to reveal much more important, North-South divisions. This is quite important to the development of diplomacy, a problem which was previously under the radar.
‘’There are multiple actors involved, complex multilateral as well as bilateral processes at work, and the substance of global diplomacy covers a wider agenda of issues than ever before’’.
After 9/11, the actions of George Bush and the American administration successfully put pessimism of global diplomacy at a peak since the cold war ended. As White agrees, the negotiations between powerful state actors and the subsequent illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan made the European community pessimistic about the USA’s previous Cold War rants about containment and deterrence. The important lesson to learn here is that the nature of diplomacy, whatever stage we are at in the world, always contains some personal motives, and depending on the country and circumstance this could be a higher or lower percentage.
‘’Every foreign department is linked to a network of embassies, and this constitutes the diplomatic machinery of the government’’. (Note the interesting use of ‘’diplomatic machinery’’, what do you have to say about this??)
An ambassador should maintain good relations with the host state, its elites, and go to relevant ceremonial functions, which we can relate back to the beginning of the article where I talk about historic functions of diplomacy. So, not all the previous functions of diplomacy have withered away, and some remain quite important. The idea of symbolism is still here, with a ‘’bigger embassy’’ now symbolizing the importance of a state. If you go to the American embassy in London you would understand this methodology as it is beginning to resemble a fort. Consulates should also protect its citizens at home and abroad. Practically speaking, this is a very important function of diplomacy. Whenever you travel abroad, especially to a developing country, you are taking a risk and having an embassy in the host country means that your safety and right are being protected, especially if you come from a Western country. One event that springs to mind is the war in Lebanon, the British troops were the first to provide shelter and assistance and eventually take its citizens home safely.
Developing states are ‘’handicapped’’ as international actors and tend to have patchy systems of representation abroad and a limited range of policy instruments to negotiate with other actors when abroad. The developing countries need international actors like the United Nations to give them a formal voice and some relevance and power in the international community. Diplomacy doesn’t work as well when states and their leaders are corrupt. How do you think we could improve this in the future?
‘’Diplomatic machinery’’, or ‘’diplomacy and other policy instruments’’
So, the carrot and stick theory arises once again. Trade and aid can be given or withheld. Weapons and military can be used to increase their status and importance. Iran’s supposed development of a Nuclear bomb, although it has been on the horizon since the 1970s Islamic revolution, has now put it in an almost cult status of international superstar. Even non state actors such as al Qaeda have managed to bring themselves from obscurity to the forefront of international politics through the use of warfare.
Not even the most powerful state actor now is the significant actor in the global diplomatic system. Bilateral diplomacy remains but its being increasingly overtaken/supplemented by multilateral diplomacy. Civil society and nongovernmental organizations are increasing in importance. According to the final words of White ‘’diplomacy has become a management process with actors seeking to reach agreements through a process of adjustments’’.
Other than everything that has already been said, a lot of key words sprung while reading this chapter that represent an underlying motive of capitalism, symbolized by the last words in the chapter.