What are the main differences between security, trade and environmental diplomacy

Security diplomacy concentrates upon, not only national and regional security but also the security of citizens of the relevant state. It is more often then not carried out by individual states having meetings and occasionally, although not always as Hillary Clinton’s recent visit to the Middle East has highlighted, is backed up by the threat of force. The ‘soft ‘ power approach that is being attempted by the Obama White House does not rule out military action yet also does not threaten it overtly. The dealings with issues of national security are obviously very delicate and it is not uncommon to incorporate the use of older styled secret and back-channel diplomacy.

Trade diplomacy is predominantly based around the concept of liberal free markets and a state actor’s attempts to attain the best international trade policies possible. Within Europe this is mostly carried out within the European Union whilst world wide trade tariffs and concessions are generally the domain of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The rules and regulations enforced by these organisations go a long way to guarantee that trade issues are mostly dealt with using soft power and without the use of military force. This is a definite mark of ‘new’ diplomacy and a far cry from the days of 19th and early 20th gunboat diplomacy. It must be remembered for example that between 1839 and 1860 Britain and China fought 2 wars regarding China’s refusal to allow British traders to deal in Opium in China. The modern attempts to organise trade , although giving the whole process an air of regulation, do have there detractors, most notably in the area of environmental issues due to the massive effect trade and industrialization are having on our planet.

The Environment has, since the onset of the Global warming issue, become a much more important topic of debate in diplomatic circles. As the environment has come to be seen as more and more important the diplomacy which deals with it has become more and more multilateral in its approaches. To quote the association of Japanese industry
‘People throughout the world must join hands to create new social and economic systems’
These multilateral attempts, although having taken place for at least 20 years can, according to Richard Benedick at the John Hopkins Institute find their real and serious beginnings at the UN Earth Summit in 1992 which in turn led to the hotly debated Kyoto protocol of 1992.

In conclusion I would argue that, aside from the topics of debate the main difference between these three types of diplomacy lay in the way they are carried out. While security is very much a behind the scenes diplomatic issue, with the threat of force always lingering on the sidelines, and trade is carried out within designated organisations, environmental diplomacy is very much dealt with upon the ‘main stage’ in large, well publicised multilateral meetings