What are the key differences between security, trade and environmental diplomacy? by Ernest Andreyevich Reid

Let us now turn our attention to the next set of diplomatic paradigms. This brief but concise analysis will focus on the three areas of diplomacy – the security, trade and environmental diplomacy – in an attempt to compare and contrast them.

First of all, let us examine the security aspect of diplomacy. Taking into account the centrality of security to the foreign policy decision-making, it is always highly prioritised on the governments’ agenda. In this respect it receives slightly more attention than the trade and significantly more attention than environmental diplomacy, due to its frequently immediate character, defined by the fact that if the state has been militarily defeated it would cease to exist, in which case trade and environmental diplomacy would be of little importance. With nation-states and governments as its primary actors security diplomacy is more likely to be justified in terms of its legitimacy and hence has more credibility as opposed to trade and environmental aspects of diplomacy, which have Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as their key actors, respectively. However, the legitimacy of the security diplomacy can often be put a subject to scrutiny when looking at its instruments such as HUMINT/SIGINT (spying through human agents and computer devices) and propaganda (not to confuse with public diplomacy). When exposed, this type of security diplomacy can bring about negative consequences, such as in the case of the Russian-British spy crisis that took place last year when both sides expulsed several diplomats from their countries. In this respect security diplomacy can have much larger impact on the relations between states than the trade and environmental diplomacy, as it did in the 1960 U-2 incident, when a US reconnaissance satellite shot down by the Soviets which contributed to deterioration of their mutual relations.

Trade diplomacy is quite different to the security diplomacy in terms of its course, as it often takes a direction away from the foreign policy apparatus, as opposed to the security diplomacy which tends to go in line with it. The reason for that are the key actors of trade diplomacy – the MNCs, which are international entities loosely attributed to their home states and hence are more concerned with the profit rather than with its own countries’ security and welfare. Nevertheless, when considering governments as trade diplomacy actors – since they are the only bodies with the right to join the World Trade Organisation (WTO), aims similar to those of the security diplomacy can be detected, such as an objective to get hold of certain assets in a foreign state and use it for pursuing national interest (e.g. 17th-19th century British East India Company). As for the environmental diplomacy, its framework is significantly different to that of security diplomacy, due to the nature of its key actors – NGOs, whose credibility can often be subject to scrutiny, since governments – the bodies in charge of creating and authorising legislative systems and procedures - are considered to be the more legitimate ones as opposed to NGOs, and to that extent MNCs. The funding might be the key issue here, for if the security and trade are sponsored by governments (as well as multi-million MNC, in case of the latter), NGOs traditionally derive most of their funding from individuals, therefore the wealthy NGOs often arise suspicion, as they are likely to be home or foreign government-sponsored ‘front companies’ used for propaganda (e.g. the organisation that produced the Shared Values Initiative material turned out to be sponsored by the US Department of State). The agenda is another area where environmental diplomacy differs from security and trade, for it is arguably more selfless and prone to co-operation, as the issues such as air pollution and green-house gas affect every nation-state, regardless of military, wealth or geographical position.


In conclusion, it is necessary to point out that in the wake of rising significance of globalisation all three – security, trade and environmental diplomacy – have become increasingly interconnected and interdependent. Although there are some major differences in terms of actors, agenda and other aspects, all three have a general tendency to support and promote communication and co-operation between a variety of actors – states, MNCs and NGOs – on the global arena.