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 20^th 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.