Security, Trade and Environment

Due to the globalization, it is more difficult today to differenced security, trade and environment from each others; as trade and environment are include into the security field, and environment is taken as a trade issue. However, this linking does not result on a total fusion; there is still difference in the way they are seen and how they are dealt with.
Security and trade are seen as ‘high’ politic; they are considered ‘vital’ to the survival of the State, which means they are given full priority, and treated in the highest circle of politics by head of state/government with a full body of specialists. Even though they seemed to be equally important, the way they are dealt with are quite different. In international relations security is defined as ‘the immunity of the state to threats from outside its boundaries, by protecting and preserving the core values and principle of its society’ and as such it’s an exclusive State matter. Generally security is deal bilaterally, even though organization such as the EU or the UN gives way to multilateralism, but it is used for general treaties, states actors prefer bilaterally. It is highly qualified person who are entrusted with security, secrecy is a key point and public opinion is kept out of it, because of the high sensitivity of topics which can lead to disaster (e.g. the minister of the foreign office letting journalist take pictures of his notes, when coming out of a car, which nearly put an end to the capture of terrorist), in an international level it is an dangerous game, because of globalization more and more actors are playing in the foreign policy arena, which mean few information for a lot of player, and only the best can access the right information. The effectiveness and efficiency of foreign policies depends of how good their ‘foreign policy-machine’ is; how accurate are their information, how many people know about it (...Etc)
While Security is a delicate subject, trade in the other side is more open, there is less secrecy and involve more people; states as much as International Corporation or international organization (NGOs and IGOs) which means that multilateralism dominate. Trade is dealt in a more public way, and is in a process of transparency, but its complexity makes this process a difficult one, trade involves more and more issues and the Doha Agenda illustrate quite well that (service, investment, intellectual property etc...). As the field grow bigger so are the actors concurring in it, but its still require specialists and the general public is excluded from it.
Environmental diplomacy, in another hand even though considered as being ‘low politics’, is becoming more and more important. The biggest difference from the two other is that, an environmental issue involves everybody, which means that the public opinion can be involved. In fact, it is the public involvement which had made a ‘high politic’ matters nowadays, it is the social trend of recycling and the numerous advertisement and information given by organization such as Greenpeace &co to the general public which had made politicians rethink the importance of environmental issues. Because pollution does not respect borders or culture, a general agreement on environment is necessary, that’s how environmental diplomacy has emerged. It is divided in two parts; one dealing with natural resource matters (as they are starting to decrease), and another dealing with pollution which is increasing.