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

A distinguishable point is that diplomatic negotiations relating to security, trade and environment use different tools as achieve their goals. Security negotiations are backed by military force. Together, the use of diplomacy and military force, are seen as the traditional instruments of foreign policy. However, growing cost of social and economical welfare is directing countries to look for alternative instruments to strengthen their hand in negotiations. The Obama administration, although not dismissing the use of military completely, have been emphasizing the soft power of diplomacy and as Hillary mentioned, smart power. Meanwhile trade diplomacy and foreign policy which, usually support each other, has been inclined to go in different directions. Here, military force does not back the negotiation and thus, trade diplomacy and aid are used to threat and occasionally is used to assure compliance from others. Both can be offered, or alternatively, withheld in order to blackmail others to pursue policies that they would not otherwise choose freely to do.

Despite the growing recognition that working in parallel are crucial to produce a feasible results in diplomatic relations in economic and green matters, every so often their policies collide. The main objective of trade diplomacy is, ultimately, to promote free market. Growth, if not sustainable, is the ultimate enemy of environmental diplomacy. The later is not backed by military force, cannot pressure with trade or aid, its only bargaining tool is the manipulation of public opinion. Thus, for trade and environment transparency and multilateral negotiation are crucial to produce legitimacy and successful outcomes. But for highly sensitive security matters, this is not usually the case. For instance, a bilateral peace agreement of peace between Israel and Palestine would have an enormous impact on diplomatic relations within Middle Eastern countries as well its relations with the West. In such occasions, for security reasons, secrecy must take place until any feasible agreement is settled. This is because states in such situations, usually get less of what they bargaining for. In addition, those in position to negotiate are often confronted with fiercely opposition and thus there own safety is at jeopardy.

It is also worth mentioning that the biggest trading powers, United States and the European Union seems to have a better diplomatic trade and security relations than environmental ones. As an example, both players have been working closely as to solve the present alarming credit crunch (G-20) and Britain is the US strongest ally on the ‘war on terror’. France has, lately, joined NATO again. Nevertheless, when the concern is environment they interests diverge enormously. In Europe, policy has been driven by consumers and lobby groups that favor limits on greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, policy has been driven by producer interests, mainly in the energy sector, which oppose controls. In the South, for example, there are clearly conflicting interests between the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and those of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), which fear sea-level rise resulting from climate change due to burning of fossil fuel. Such rapidly industrializing nations as Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, Mexico, and Thailand also have very different interests from the poorer countries of Africa, Asia, and Central and South America. In this regard, those transatlantic differences have inhibited progress. Thus,the pursue of national interest will impactly directly on the counties' diplomatic policies

In sum, the key difference lays on how diplomatic relations whether is concerning environment, security or trade are conducted. Although, multilateral negotiation and high degree of transparency, arguably, has produced immense gains in areas such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation and disarmament, occasionally, as mentioned above, bilateral agreements and secrecy is the best diplomatic tool to assure meaningful and desired end.