Differences between security, trade and environmental diplomacy

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

Diplomacy in terms of security involves informal diplomatic practices such as ‘track two’ initiations by private individuals or individuals with social importance which enables them to receive a relative degree of attention needed in order to influence the targeted political sphere. According to Rana in Asian Diplomacy (2009, p. 8) ‘track two’ and ‘track three’ dialogue engages citizens, retired officials: civil and military, scholars, media-persons, social activists and public figures whom reach out to counterparts in other country (where the issue lays). As Rana highlights, track three is a mechanism which entirely rejects any ties with governments, and at times act in ‘defiance’ of home authorities in order to pursue set-objectives. Leguey-Feilleux on the other hand, suggests that track-two diplomacy is sometimes referred to as ‘citizen diplomacy’, or ‘private diplomacy’, wherein initiators largely speak for themselves rather than for a specific political constituency or authority. Citizen diplomacy arises from individuals wishing to make a difference to the world, and frequently their desires are supported by distinct 'cause/s’.

Track two diplomacy may sometimes arise as a consequence of ‘special circumstances’, and often incorporate unique (advantage) features such as ‘back-channel’ conversations, a quality which permitted a breakthrough in the Oslo Accords of 1993. These special ‘channels’ enables participants to override foreign policy bureaucracy and protocols (time consuming). Furthermore, track two can act as a ‘face-saving’ (informal) diplomatic mechanism whereby, credible ‘grounds’ for future diplomatic talks, such process and progress involves high levels of confidence-building and bridging firm basis of mutual trust.

Non-state actors such as NGOs also play substantial roles in this form of diplomacy; they are able to mobilize support and volunteer in order to combat their concerned ‘cause’. The 21st century has witnessed an unprecedented proliferation of NGOs, as well as their growing influence on political policy-makers, as well as, participating in problem-solving ‘workshops’ and crisis management, and conflicts resolutions.

Trade diplomacy on the other hand, operates within multilateral settings under mutually agreed-on conventions among states such as those provided through the WTO. In the Asia-Pacific region, ASEAN represents East Asia regional forum where member states gather annually to discuss issues relating to the region's stability. ASEAN's central principles is to facilitate the economic growth, social development and cultural development through mutual efforts and throughout an atmosphere of equality and partnership.

Other forums where this type of diplomacy also operates, is under the establishment of APEC. APEC's key aim is to promote trade and investment liberalisation in order to eradicate tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade and investment. Liberalisation thus enables markets to be more 'open', and have better prospects of trade and business investments. All in all, APEC will gradually bring economic growth and advancement in living standards for all of its member economies.

Woolcock (The Changing Nature of Trade Diplomacy, 2002) explains how contemporary trade diplomacy is undergoing change via the 'deepening' of the international trading system - referring to the intensification of trade policies which now incorporate include issues such as services, investments, environmental regulations, consumer protection, food safety standards and so forth. And the 'widening' of the system which stresses on quantitative increase of countries actively participating in international trading transactions, thus enlarging the system in size. Trade diplomacy can therefore be seen as an increasingly inter-complex affair, involving members with varying developmental stages whom all seek to obtain and represent a quantitative chuck/stake of the system.


Environmental diplomacy aims at promoting the integration of environment into external relations through the creation of informal networks mechanism. As we become more and more aware of growing common climate issues such as the degradation of the ozone layer, issues which have tendencies to bring about severe health risks triggered states worldwide to take adequate measures in preventing further deterioration. Environmental diplomacy is carried out in multilateral negotiations/forums as well as, global negotiations. Environmental diplomacy is indirectly associated with issues concerning sustainable development and the reduction of poverty. Here, NGOs are increasingly taking larger roles in this form of diplomatic practice; they express the view of government in international negotiation and become aware of the cross-cutting nature of environmental issues in order to collaborate with others to reach constructive solutions to counter global concerns.

Although there may be slight differences is the procedures of: security, trade and environmental diplomacy, as a whole they are intertwined and can not be physically pulled-apart especially in today's interconnected and interdependent world.