What are the key differences between crisis, trade and environmental diplomacy?

The term crisis diplomacy is use for diplomatic situations when military engagement is on edge and state security is at risk. As Martin White states “force and diplomacy is two sides of the same coin” also meaning that crisis diplomacy is backed by military force. In the Cuban missile crisis, however, it was also the military that had to make withdrawals, USSR from Cuba and US from Turkey. Like in most crisis diplomacy this case was bilateral and secretive ( especially the knowledge of US concessions became publicly known long after the crisis) are the two basic concepts of old diplomacy. Both sides also used back channels to try to make their case. Now in a less bipolar world, influence from international organizations like NATO and UN are more pronounced even in crisis situations. Ultimately it could depend on the root of the crisis; hypothetically a MNC or a NGO challenging state sovereignty could lead to crisis between host and parent state, and negotiations would possibly become multilateral(in the case of Al-Queda, if diplomatic negotiations have occurred they have occurred secretly).

States negotiating economical deals are said to engage in trade diplomacy. http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifThe goal for the state is to gain as much profit as possibly without endangering their international relationships, but also to further their relationships with the increased interaction trade lead to. A tool of diplomacy is trade sanctions, which could ultimately threaten economic stability and therefore also ability to host great military power. Public boycotting of a special MNC brand could effect a parents country's GDP quite much in a globalized world where external markets are so important, but as often in trade diplomacy a solution is found quickly. Trade diplomacy is often engage in multilaterally and often non-state actor are also involved. WTO is often used as a forum for trade negotiations, it is however and actor is self sometimes seeming to favour western countries in negotiations. Expansion of markets and promoting of consumption is according to green thinking the opposite of environmental sustainability.

The declining world environment will eventually affects us all, failing crops has an effect both on national economies and could ultimately also lead to mass migration which would have effects on state security. The environmental diplomacy has mostly been made by NGO's promoting radical action usually with MNC as there opposition. NGO's mostly tries to influence public opinion with awareness campaigns to pressure governments to take action. MNC could secretly financially support political campaigns for presidential candidates that would keep conservative regulations in support of MNC competitive advantages and that would not be keen on engaging in environmental negotiations (aka. Bush). MNC promoting environmental friendly technological solutions on the other hand would try to pressure governments to make environmental arguments banning older technologies, like the Montreal Protocol banning of products using CFC, which then would be both trade and environmental diplomacy at work. The creation of these environmental protocols are often made multilaterally in inclusive summit negotiations. As a cause of the many actors, there are many interests, half solutions and negotiations are very slow and it is hard to come to consistent implementations. The enforcement in the global arena is hard to find, but one idea is the Multilateral Fund (MLF) that is suppose to act as an carrot, especially for developing countries, if meeting targets.

The common ground for these three ways of diplomacy can be found in sustaining security. If the economy is healthy then a state is able to keep their military power. If the environment is healthy a state would ex. avoid failing crops effect on the economy, loss of food which could lead to mass migration and chaos creating major crisis. The key differences lies in the role and functions of non-state actors and civil society in these three kind of diplomacy. Also in the use of old or new diplomacy functions in obtaining security.