The differences between trade,security and enviromental diplomacy

Security diplomacy may seem the most important agenda in international talks; however because of the interconnectedness what globalization brought, trade and environmental diplomacy have escalating roles. Security diplomacy is mainly part of the traditional diplomacy process, which is often a bilateral but there are example of other parties being involved as well. It is mainly concerned with the physical security or integrity of a state. In the 21st century the presence of WMDs and the threat of terrorist groups make security diplomacy a crucial element. Although to control or resolve a crisis diplomatic methods are used (such as negotiations, soft power tools), the crisis is often supervised by military. The presence of the military highly distinguishes security from trade or environmental diplomacy. In recent times, the security diplomacy has been revised, by the new American administration as well as others, who claim that traditional negotiations are not effective in crisis situations and multilateral negotiations should be introduced to it. President W. Wilson also found security bilateral negotiations outdated at the end of the First World War when he blamed these secret meetings for the outbreak of the war.
Trade diplomacy on the other hand is a much more open and multilateral. It is to advance the smooth running of the free market between states often using the WTO as a mediator. It can be done bilaterally however multilateral negotiations in trade diplomacy are more common. In trade diplomacy NGOs and other non state actors are playing higher role than in the security diplomacy where state is more centric-although there are back channels, track two negotiations which can include unofficial personnel in security diplomacy. The other main difference is that within trade diplomacy hard power is not significant and it solely relies on negotiations, trade-offs and other non violent deals made between countries.
The environment diplomacy-out of the three is the most inclusive one and probably the most important one which affects everyone in the long term. In this kind of diplomacy NGOs get the highest role since they are able to get the public to cooperate. It is multilayered and the negotiations are open ended (with no known results e.g. the Kyoto protocol is going to get evaluated in 2012) therefore on environment issues it is impossible to close deals or use military power as an option. There are often statistics, charts, percentages produced by scientist. This technical and scientific nature can not be found in the above mentioned forms.
Security, trade and environmental diplomacy are more linked than it could seem at first sight. Perhaps it does not share common features but it is certainly connected. Riordan draws a very good example of how one can affect the other two and vice versa. He uses the example of an insecure farmer who overuses his land because of the unstable economic situation, the fear of poverty etc. This leads to environmental changes such as soil erosion and development issues but also to poverty and disease what can conduce unrests therefore security problems, migration which is a huge pressure on economics and subsequently a set back for trade deals.