As opposed to Morgenthau’s view that the old diplomacy is in decline and go as far as to say that diplomacy has become more and more aphatic and has lost stimulus due the communication revolution, Hocking presents a stronger claim stressing the evolving nature of diplomacy. Those who claim that diplomacy has failed to avoid the two world wars, overlook the fact the diplomatic corps has worked hard to avoid an unaccountable number of other minor conflicts no one hears about.
It’s clear that the communication revolution has disrupted the traditional methods of diplomacy. For instance, secrecy in negotiations has opened space to a more transparent method of relation in which public opinion has influence diplomatic relations between states especially on the policies relating to peace. Furthermore, bilateral relations has been compromised by an overwhelming increase in the number of issues that require a multilateralist approach, if is to produce any effect, such as pollution, drugs, human right, terrorism, poverty and such alike.
Nevertheless, despite those changes in the international context, this does not imply by any means that bilateral relations and secret negotiations does not take place, in fact, in many cases they are the best way to achieve diplomatic end.
States are still adapting to globalisation and all changes existent within this process, and so, as highlighted by Berridge “states change interests and international actors gained relevance, the process of negotiation have also evolved”. As a result, the role of embassies has also evolved around the rise of concern with low-politics whether is welfare of citizens, tourism or migration. The last two point in special have become a rather crucial role of embassies around the world as a point of support for citizens when travelling abroad, something unlike to diminish.
In short states still the most significant actors for old or new diplomacy purposes. Traditional diplomacy has been transformed rather than outdated.
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The traditional diplomacy was originated in Athens. Diplomatic institutions of today can be traced back to the fifteenth-century. After the First World War, there was a need for a new form of diplomatic system. Since 1914 the structure of the world has changed, compared to the present struggle between West and East, the rivalries of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries sink into triviality. Today we faced, not with a clash of interest, but with a fight between ideologies. The old diplomacy was based upon the creation of confidence, the acquisition of credit.
ReplyDeleteThe old system is not sufficient enough to contain the more multifaceted world. Its state-centred focus is no longer adequate to deal with the different actors that have emerged.
With the Invention of ICT, state centric politics is not good for world politics, for instance in the olding days, the conduct of foreign affairs was entrusted to a small international elite who shared the same sort of background and who desired to preserve the same sort of world, while today masses takes interest in foreign policy and affairs, they also want to know the details of the controversies, and also render their complaints through media and to their government.
Another issue about Traditional diplomacy is the secrecy; it stems the word “diplomacy” to signify both foreign policy and negotiation, foreign policy should never be secret, but negotiation should always be confidential. While the new diplomacy is open and provides more information to the public.
Thus , I will conclude by saying that traditional diplomacy is not outdated in the sence that the old norms about it like the embassies and diplomats and representatives are still functional till date , just that Globalization and the introduction of ICT has some how changed diplomacy.