The key differences between security, trade and environmental diplomacy in my opinion depends in some way, in the position we are looking at them. Security diplomacy its definitely one of the most important issues and a priority for the states and the society as a ‘basic need’, but a key difference is that security still being part of the so called old diplomacy, in the security case the there is not a remarkable evolution to a public diplomacy is still in a very ‘close-doors decisions’.
On other hand trade diplomacy, has dramatically changed, due importantly as an effect of globalization, the role trade diplomacy now play has been increasing in the past decades, the integration of the society and the ‘multilateral negotiations’ between states within trade diplomacy has being affecting now to global decisions, the ‘interaction’ now they have is of great impact to a global trade, and is exemplified in the World Trade Organization or in the Fair Trade movements.
Environmental diplomacy, in my view, has been implemented just as an answer or a reaction of the climatic changes, the environmental problems such as deforestation or high pollution cities are suffering. In my opinion states had failed to implemented adequate policies to ‘put a brake’ to the pollution problem. The society has been trying to make they hear via non-governmental organizations such as Greenpeace just to named one, but not with the impact or results hoped, because at the end the only one with the power to make a real change is the state.
Just to add, I think the best example in all the contexts which contains security, trade and environment, is the problem of the Weapons of Massive Destruction which threat the three. Principally the Iran’s nuclear program, which the U.S. claimed it threats the international security, Iran claimed the policies U.S. towards them and the trade sanctions affected their economy but none of them seem to be concerned in the environmental issues. In my opinion the main difference between security, trade and environment is the way they are seen, the interests diploma tics represent and the fact on how so important are they considered and served.
On other hand trade diplomacy, has dramatically changed, due importantly as an effect of globalization, the role trade diplomacy now play has been increasing in the past decades, the integration of the society and the ‘multilateral negotiations’ between states within trade diplomacy has being affecting now to global decisions, the ‘interaction’ now they have is of great impact to a global trade, and is exemplified in the World Trade Organization or in the Fair Trade movements.
Environmental diplomacy, in my view, has been implemented just as an answer or a reaction of the climatic changes, the environmental problems such as deforestation or high pollution cities are suffering. In my opinion states had failed to implemented adequate policies to ‘put a brake’ to the pollution problem. The society has been trying to make they hear via non-governmental organizations such as Greenpeace just to named one, but not with the impact or results hoped, because at the end the only one with the power to make a real change is the state.
Just to add, I think the best example in all the contexts which contains security, trade and environment, is the problem of the Weapons of Massive Destruction which threat the three. Principally the Iran’s nuclear program, which the U.S. claimed it threats the international security, Iran claimed the policies U.S. towards them and the trade sanctions affected their economy but none of them seem to be concerned in the environmental issues. In my opinion the main difference between security, trade and environment is the way they are seen, the interests diploma tics represent and the fact on how so important are they considered and served.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.