Trade and environmental diplomacy: What are the key differences between security, trade and environmental diplomacy?

The different forms of diplomacy are practiced in a variety of ways, however in some areas the various types of diplomacy do overlap. Security diplomacy understandably is one element of diplomacy that has remained exclusive and secretive within states – often involving intelligence agencies and spying on other state. This element of diplomacy arguably remains the closest to the ‘old’ diplomacy. Activities are discreetly carried out, usually bilaterally, but occasionally multilaterally (for instance, allied groups such as NATO) and while it is known by other states that these activities are taking place – the details remain secretive in order to heighten the protection of the national interest and the safety of its citizens. The Cuban Missile Crisis is an ideal example of secretive diplomacy between state leaders using back channels in order to reach an agreement and prevent catastrophe.

Trade diplomacy operates in a very different manner – far more open and inclusive, it adopts a multilateral approach, it involves the participation of alternative transnational actors such as Multi National Corporations, international organisations such as the WTO and states. Bilateral trade diplomacy still exists between states although in a world of increasing interconnectedness, multilateral trade is becoming more common. As the diplomacy is not based around state security, it relies far more on negotiation and maximising the economic benefits for states and to ensure the free market continues and improves. The results of negotiations are quickly reached (by comparison to environmental diplomacy) and easier to implement.

Environmental diplomacy, again involves more transnational actors – states, MNCs, IGOs and NGOs. Conference diplomacy is used and so it is an open and inclusive process, but with a global issue like the environment, and with every actors wanting to pursue different interests, it is very difficult to reach solid decisions and even more difficult to implement them. In this respect environmental diplomacy is very open ended and the results are often not seen immediately. The Kyoto Protocol in 1997 is a good example of a measures proposed that are unlikely to be met before the treaty expires in 2012 – the protocol itself has proved to be nearly impossible to enforce. Due to this, it is questionable how much difference this has actually made to the environment and shows the slow moving process of environmental diplomacy. A major difference is that NGOs and IGOs play a more significant role in this form of diplomacy than other forms, as they are often the most knowledgeable, and are seen to have more legitimacy than states or MNCs. However, states remain the most significant still as they are the only actors able to create and sign treaties.