Both trade, security and environment are connected in different ways, and they sometimes do clash. For example, what seems like wise actions from a traders point of view is not necessarily good for the environment, and a wise move for the environment is not always in line with a state’s security interests. Out of the three, security diplomacy is the one that retains most of the characteristics of the Old Diplomacy. It concerns states’ security, which is a concept that is very much connected to the Realist school of International Relations, and involves a high degree of realpolitik. Security diplomacy is often done behind closed doors, and much of it is secret. This, many would argue, is both natural and necessary, as many of the issues dealt with are highly sensitive and states may out want other states to know what they are doing. Security diplomacy issues are also sometimes dealt with through back channels; sometimes only the heads of states know what is going on. However, as was the case at the outset of the First World War, secrecy is not always desirable, and ideally, the secret, Old Style Diplomacy should be combined with openness so that states know at least roughly what other states are doing.
It could also be argued to be natural that trade and environmental diplomacy are more since these questions are not as crucial to states’ survival, and also because these issues are closer to the general public and their concerns. As the capitalist system builds on trade and profit, it is also good for a state’s reputation to be seen to act on the behalf on those who have interests in trade and commerce.
However, trade diplomacy in particular is also seen by some as a means for the rich states to try to control poorer ones, and most people would agree that the western developed states are over-represented in the big trade for a such as the World Trade Organization. Unfortunately, the levels of consummation that many part of the world have reached today, leads to clashes between environment and trade, as the concept of sustainable development tries to combine the two.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About security diplomacy, its about secerecy and back channels, and its bilateral between two states, for example with the on going war in Afghanistan with the Taliban, the west and America seemed to have failed in fight against the Taliban, and they have resulted in seceret diplomacy with the Taliban, and that seemed to be working and even the Commanders that have been leading in the war, are saying that the war can never be won unless they dialogue with the Taliban and speak to them, and also with Iraq war, were America is consulting with the different factions in Iraq like the Shites and Sunnis and Kurds to work together for a better Iraq.
ReplyDeleteTrade diplomacy is multilateral and is between many states, for example with the global financial crisis, were a financial summit was held in London and allmost $1 trillion was injected into the world economy, the super nations came together to save the IMF and World bank and the poorer nations, but still most agenda are still controllled by the powerfull nations. WTO and IMF most of their policies are still not favourable for poorer nations.
Environmental diplomacy, we have realized that some very important environmental problems demand solutions which transgress our national boudaries, and the answer to this is international environmental co-operation.
Environmental diplomacy was first talked about after the end of the Cold War, Environment and development policy were put at the top of the international agenda in 1992, when the United Nations organized the Earth Summit in Rio, the largest meeting of heads of state and government ever.
I think after this summit, so much awareness about environment was created with the help of NGOs aswell. And it’s also multilateral.
I agree with your agument that they are all connected in one way or another, and that security diplomacy is the one which resembles traditinal diplomacy the most, and that secrecy is not always desireable. However,I disagree with trade and environmental diplomacy is not crucial for a state's survival as I seen them as, perhaps indirectly,very much involved in a state's stability and ability to survive, espcially with the current dynamics.
ReplyDeleteI have to say I also disagree wth the idea that trade and environmental diplomacy are not important to state survival. I would argue that the fact that new actors like MNCs and NGOs participating within diplomacy today actually is a real indicator of how significant these forms of diplomacy are today. Furthermore, the fact that they are undeniably interrelated suggests to me that any decision made within one form of diplomacy might well affect an other - directly or indirectly.
ReplyDelete