TRADE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DIPLOMACY: Difference between Security, Trade and Environmental Diplomacy

1.

Security Diplomacy is Old Diplomacy because crisis is solved by bilateral negotiations between states. Most of the crisis is negotiated through back channel diplomacy or through intermediary. The main reasons for states using back channels diplomacy in democracies, is that leaders and decision makers may find it difficult to justify the costs of entering negotiations and the fear to make concessions in public which can be interpreted by both publics as a sign of weakness, because leaders and decision makers know that the public is watching their performance. Furthermore, it will prevent spoilers to organise and work to sabotage the negotiations. Leaders like to maintain their status quo in the public eye.

There has been some exceptions on 1991 Desert Storm war when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the security issue was multilateral. Finally, it is important to mention that the 11/09 brought terrorism into the top of international security agenda where states, multilaterally, interact more than before on the issue.

2.

Trade Diplomacy is carried out through the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the only international organisation responsible for global rules of trade between countries. The WTO came to force in 1995 in replacement of the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs (GATT). Its main works is to reduce trade protection in order to equally; all states should enjoy free markets around the world on manufactured and agricultural products. However, the system is still very difficult for the periphery due to agricultural subsidiaries in the United States of America (USA) and in the European Union (EU). There have been many rounds of negotiations, at the beginning countries were more worried with tariff reductions and when the tariff went down, countries now have shifted to non-tariff barriers to trade such as subsidies, government procurement and technical barriers to trade.

Developing countries find the WTO difficult for them because in practical terms it benefits the north. Although decisions in WTO are consensus, diplomats from the south still have to make alliances to make their ideas pass. For example, the Doha Negotiations’ one of the features was agricultural trade liberalization. But developing countries were not happy and the only solution for them was to make alliances among them to call for changes in the talks to ensure that developing country voices and concerns were heard. From there on they got their concerns heard and the south left the negotiations united.

In conclusion, although they have being systematically ignored in the early years, the developing countries of the Global South have made an important impact at Doha agricultural negotiations to influence the process and the negotiations, thanks to diplomatic cooperation.