International issues and controversies

Hello everyone,

Hope your exams went well and you are all enjoying your holidays. Apart from that, I would like to introduce you to the blog I have created called 'international issues and controversies' available at http://worlddilemmas.blogspot.com.

Take look at it and if interested, you are more than welcome to join.

Best wishes,

Visit to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

On 24th April some of the New Diplomacy students and I attended a wonderful morning of activity at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We heard from a variety of speakers, including the desk officer for Burma and officials dealing with export licences and arms control issues. Before lunch we were treated to a tour of the buildings by the FCO's historian Kate Crowe. A very informative and entertaining morning. Many thanks to Martin Garrett for inviting us and for being such a welcoming host.

Just a thought, and in reference to February's blog on 'the alleged torture of British resident and detainee in Guantanamo Bay'

At the start of the semester one of our classmate posted a blog regarding the alleged torture of a British resident and detainee in Guantanamo Bay.

Recently, and thanks to the perseverance of Mr Binyam Mohamed (the former detainee) lawyers along with several media organizations such as the The Times newspaper, NY Times, The Guardian News & Media and the BBC has led the High Court to take rather unusual measures in reopening the case of the former British Guantanamo detainee.

At the start of the year, the UK agreed to US's request not to disclose details on manners in which US officials handled the detainee; however recent pressures from the media and human rights organisations have manged to trigger a re-inquiry into the matter.

Last week the director of human rights organisation 'Reprieve', said:

'It is long past time that this evidence was made public...... How can it be that two governments that purport to uphold the rule of law be working together to cover up crimes committed against Binyam Mohamed?'

The reasons behind me posting this blog is to ask whether the current scenario may turn into (what Hirut earlier in February suggestsd) 'a diplomatic crisis'. Can this incident, providing the High Court continues the process of re-opening the case.....to some extent harm the UK-US so called 'special relationship'?

Or does this news event illustrate the power and influence of international organisations (in this case a 'human rights oriented' group) along with media firms divert or re-direct government's courses of actions/behaviour?

My understanding of diplomacy today

My first opinions about diplomacy were that diplomacy is similar to a pyramid in which you have the base, the foundations in the old diplomacy and then you continue to add layers to it and it becomes more diverse and complex similar to the international system that we live in now. This view has not changed drastically, I still see diplomacy as a feature deeply rooted in international politics, and the methods of the old diplomacy still exsist and will continue to exsist so long as we live through a Realists assumption of the world. However, my opinions about the role of diplomacy have altered slightly. I wasnt aware of the extent that diplomacy is needed throughout all arenas of international politics from the environment, to trade, finance, and security, and international policy making and treaties. My awareness of diplomacy was restricted to foreign policy and foreign relations. I am now much more aware of the significance of diplomacy in international politics and the role that individuals have in creating that. It has made me think a lot about the voting system, individual parties and non governmental organization that have a stronger impact than I believed, especially in Western countries. It has also made me think about the diplomatic process and systems used in Europe and North America versus the rest of the world and how much more progress we need.

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

Security diplomacy and trade diplomacy are in the foundations of diplomacy, whereas environmental diplomacy is a relatively new phenomena. Security diplomacy and trade diplomacy have had to adapt to the modern international environment, in terms of security, this means that there has been a need to control information because of all the communication and technology involved in diplomacy such as the internet, phone, tv, media; for trade diplomacy it has been a matter of involving more actors and adding extra dimensions when it comes to policy making in particular. Environmental diplomacy has followed the same route but because environmental diplomacy is quite new, tracing back to Stockholm in 1972, it has not had to change many aspects as it increased in importance just as the world was entering into its internationalization/globalization phenomenon during the mid to late 1980's. One way in which security and trade diplomacy differs to environmental diplomacy is that security and trade diplomacy have been an ongoing process since the beginning of diplomacy, whereas up until very recently, environmental diplomacy only recieved a higher important on the international agenda after a humanitarian disaster occured. You can see examples of this when Bill Clinton was in the administration, and the evidence came about that proved that human beings had caused the hole in the Antarctic ozone in 1985. There were a number of agencies created, CFC's were banned, and there were quite a strong movement towards being more environmentally friendly. However, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, all that we have heard for the past eight years are issues concerning security (ie terrorism) and trade (the most important contender in this being China's refusal to join the WTO). The US governments' refusal to sign the kyoto protocol and admit to the exagerrated climate change caused by high carbon emissions is an example of this. Therefore, security and trade diplomacy are in general deemed more important than environmental diplomacy.

what is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy?
It is important to mention before answering this question that many aspects of the ''old'' diplomacy still exsist and are quite fundamental to the diplomatic procedure such as state and government protocol, private diplomatic functions and missionaries. However, there are many new aspects involved in diplomacy. The biggest challenge that we have to the political system is our personal vote. Although there are many parts of the world that still dont have a ''full'' democratic system, according to The Economist about 51%, slightly over half the world, live in demicratic countries. Although the countries which practice genuine unflawed democracy is probably only a third of that percentage, so we need to do better, since the origins of democracy started in Athens over 2,000 years ago. So, our personal capabilities in the political and diplomatic system are and will continue to challenge modern diplomacy. The methods in which we have been able to do this have largely been due to modern technology and communication. For example, the internet. Websites such as ReliefWeb have allowed thousands of non governmental organizations access to crises all over the world, what exactly is needed, what the situation is. These websites and NGO's are in addition, facilitated by TV news channels such as BBC, EuroNews, and CNN international, who give us a minute to minute account of humanitarian crises, political riots, natural disasers, and so on. To a certain extent, our power, if used well enough, can override traditional governmental organizations. In the past, the campaign against landmines and the way that NGO's all over the world caused such a commotion over what was (or wasnt) being done and eventually allowed their representatives to speak at formal meeting on behalf of this cause shows this phenomenon. In the present, the British governments ruling against allowing Ghurkas british residency is being challenged by Nick Clegg the leader of the Liberal Democrats and Joanna Lumley as well as thousands of British resident supporters and the pressure which the government is currently facing might force them to overrule this desicion

Reflections on understanding diplomacy

The most important thing that this module has taught me, and that i maintain throughout my blog posts, is the importance of situation and circumstance when it comes to using diplomatic tools. I was not aware, when I started studying this module, of all the tools available to diplomats and diplomacy in general (soft power, para-diplomacy etc...) It was only after the first couple of lectures that it became clear to me that diplomacy has progressed in such a way, thanks in large part to technological advances that it has allowed us to do the unthinkable - think a thought and communicate it over large distances within seconds/minutes. The diplomatic tools we have been introduced to, including different methods and mechanisms of interaction, have demonstrated to us the numerous possibilities of resolving conflicts or disagreements, but they all rest largely on the ability of the person to using these tools to be able to commuunicate effectively.
I was not initially aware of the difference between the old and the new diplomacy, but it has been made increasingly clear that the new diplomacy is simply a highly useful and advanced evolution of the old diplomacy. I think that the increased use of soft power in implementing foreign policy through diplomats is one of the aspects that interest me the most, along with the role of the EU as a global diplomatic actor.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF DIPLOMACY TODAY

MY UNDERSTANDING OF DIPLOMACY TODAY
Having gone to the end of the module arguably my knowledge about diplomacy has improved greatly. From the first impression, my understanding of Diplomacy was very narrow, but with intense lecture I have come to understand that in complex and unmerciful world, diplomacy has to play a decisive role in terms of achieving the. Peace. More profoundly was the knowledge of knowing and understanding Traditional and new diplomacy. I was able to understand the high politics and low politics of new and traditional diplomacy. Traditional diplomacy I was able to understand deals more with high politics issues like security as well as the intense use of secrecy and it only operate in bilateral bases.
Therefore the questions I asked my self are what is the difference between new and old if you like type of diplomacy? I came to the conclusion with the understanding from the lectures that are not much of a difference between the old and new diplomacy except the new expanding more to include greater participation. With this led me to conclude that multilateral diplomacy is part of what should be considered as new in the new diplomacy.
Furthermore, with increase environmental problems and great interdependence arguably made bilateral diplomacy insufficient enough to deal with problems that encompass bilateral process. Additionally, what is new about the new diplomacy to my understanding is the impact of technological progress. With this saw the increase undermining of the traditional diplomatic process as well as the speed up of information’s that requires for diplomacy

My Understanding Of Dipomacy Today

Few weeks back, Despite disruption created in London the snow was exciting for me as I am from twelve months sunshine country. But more than the snow I was excited about the New Diplomacy Module. And I decided to do whatever it takes to attend the first lecture. And on that freezing morning Steven had given us basic questions of diplomacy. To begin with my knowledge of diplomacy was limited. I was seeing diplomacy in terms of necessary interaction between two equal States in which the Embassy serves as representation mainly as symbol with some functions including information gathering and hold secret negotiations. In other words my understanding was only on bilateral diplomacy.

However since we started the module my understanding of diplomacy has been transformed beyond comprehension. And the first thing I have learned that Bilateral diplomacy is under attack from various issues including from the rapid growth of globalization, information and communication technologies (ICT) and the summitry & shuttle diplomacy and the evolving nature of diplomacy undermined bilateral diplomacy. Therefore States had to adapt with new forms of diplomacy such as Public Diplomacy, 'Paradiplomacy' of non-state actors and inclusive form of multilateralism.

some countries such as Norway and Canada make good use of this new form of diplomacy. particularly with the public diplomacy has been doing well to promote their culture and policy by informing and influencing foreign population. the case with Canada and Norway their influence is direct action of their deeds not by broadcasting and in return have healthy image. Although Americans had been abolished their major public tools United States Information Agency (USIA) prior September 11. But after 9/11 began to consolidate their public diplomacy in order to improve their image by emphasising on winning hearts and minds of moderate Muslims and to receive cooperation from foreign nations. And also states has to embrace the fact that 'paradiplomacy' of non-state actors are getting more power full than before and their expertise and resources are enormous, they playing great role in setting the agenda and also NGOs have large and engaged memberships and world wide followers and they command respect and credible. Although the NGOs and multilateral diplomacy are interconnected the growth of international organizations and conference shows inclusiveness in which states are not limited to bilateral diplomacy and can negotiate in wider range of issues in international level.

I have now deeper understanding of diplomacy. The New Diplomacy Module has been one of the most interesting course and I have enjoying it immensely. We must count ourselves lucky that Steven has introduced this exciting module this year.

Brian White on diplomacy: Having read White’s chapter for seminar 2, what are the most important issues he raises concerning the nature and developmen

White stresses that the practice of diplomacy as a process of communications has existed between political entities for thousands of years. However modern diplomacy stemmed from the creation of the international European community in the 17th century. The significant change was the process of communications between recognisable sovereign nation-states, allowing politics to be ‘detached’ from religion. He also emphasises how the process of diplomacy has continued to evolve and retransform it self to the ever changing nature of the international system. For instance he states that the aftermath of WWI, led to the development of an intergovernmental organisation (the League of Nations, later the UN), with the intention of preventing another world war. The organisation was set up as a forum for peaceful settlements of disagreements and as a deterrent against another war. He does note that it was for this reason where the belief of a new diplomacy arose from, a common hope for a new start. The aftermath of WWI led the development of non state actors and its role in influencing states in order to achieve their goals. The diplomatic agenda continued to expand increasingly with highly specialised issues, for instance global warming, organisations with expertise in the field would make it its objective to shape governments outcomes with regards to environmental issues. He also focused on the changing structure of diplomacy. The current growing interdependence of states, due to the processes of globalisation has led to what some may consider as ‘global’ diplomacy, in order to combat issues that concern the welfare of the majority of the world. Finally White maintains, that although the international system has proved to become increasingly interdependent, the state continues to be a significant diplomatic player, suggesting that diplomatic agencies are still the preserve of states and intergovernmental relations.

My understanding of diplomacy today

When I first started this module, I had a rough idea what it may be about. Now I had a whole semister, It has been the most fascinating module. My understanding of diplomacy before my course was that it was about secrecy; conducted by sophisticated career diplomats on behalf of their country! I suppose I got the traditional character of diplomacy right but I discover it is a lot more than that. Bilateral or traditional diplomacy, like everthing else had to evolve. Today, diplomacy involves many multilateral bodies such as NGOs IGOS intra-states such as the EU or OAU Trade and organisations such as WTO , WHO and others who handle International issues such as Narcotic prevention International terrorism and climate change. The world faces multiple international issues. This is partly due to globalisation who has brought immese change to the way we live and also where we live especially since the end of the cold war which has seen unpresedented level of migration and movement of people which brings its on challenge to international politics. The way diplomacy was traditionally conducted through the Foreign Office and embassies is changed too-Following the revolution with information technology, traditional bodies of diplomacy had to adjust to this new change. Diplomacy may or may not be still state-centric however, we cannot shy away from the fact that, there are a lot more actors now in scene and states no longer dictate or call the shots as how diplomacy is conducted and perceived. There are organisations and groups now who are speaking on behalf of the disadvantaged, the abused and exploited in International summits representing and negotiating forgotten groups and issues. In my view, this is a wonderful development that is all inclusive and gives full representation of all issues and people of the world. Diplomacy is all about finding solution to issues-whatever they may be.

Understanding Of Diplomacy Today

History tells us that men have sought to solve problems by various routes and Hamilton reveals to us that “the beginning of diplomacy occurred when the first human society decided to hear the message than to eat the messenger”. What Hamilton argued describe the continuous struggle for power and dominance to this very day.

However, we can generally make sense of the old and new diplomacy in relation to ‘macro’ defined as the big picture and ‘micro’ which is defined as the small picture. The macro perspective tries to make sense of world politics as a whole in relation to its leading organizations such as the United Nations, World Bank and World trade organisation. On the other hand, micro perspective tries to explain world politics from the point of view of the actors involved in world politics. Similar to the pursuit of power, the promotion of the national interest, self help which is the principle of action in an anarchical system where there is no global government. This is realist’s view, that each state actor is ultimately responsible for ensuring their own wellbeing and survival.

Traditionally the micro perspective focal point was the states and the governments that act in the world politics. However, this is no longer the case since there are other emerging actors involved in the process of the world affairs in this day and age.

By emerging, many would agree that this is what defines the course of the new diplomacy. This is been my first and foremost impression or understanding of diplomacy in relation to nation states long held traditional diplomac resistence in the international system where non governmental organisation, multinational corporations and new world actors such as celebrities are rapidly emerging.

The continuous process of new representation in the world system is where states bilateral diplomacy is coming under some form of strain. It is difficult however, to argue whether or not the new messenger is been heard, used or even going to be eaten by their parent countries. Note that the structure of the new diplomacy is governed and in most cases sponsored by the old diplomacy to the extent that states and government remains the principal actors in the world. In that case emerging new actors cannot make any significant impact without the backing of their governments.

Many argue that globalisation undermines and doubt that states should remain the dominant form of political community in an era of mounting global problems which requires global solutions. Arrangements to sign treaties, agree and disagree remain a political issue. The crucial question to conclude is whether or not political communities and their domestic and foreign bilateral diplomacy which is to this day the most important instrument of negotiation will become less nationalistic in interests, security and economic prosperity because of globalisation. Sensitive cabinet meetings, secrecies and backchannels do not always work. But would it be on the interest of national security and welfare to exclude the rising new world actors and public diplomacy. Arguably that may not be the case and for that reason diplomacy today means building both strong bilateral and multilateral association in order to finding mutual interests. There is a tendency that the new diplomacy masks the traditional diplomacy but many would agree with the fact that the driving force of the new diplomacy resides heavily on the traditional diplomacy.

My understanding of diplomacy

My understanding of diplomacy really changed since the start of the module. Diplomacy is increasingly changing. In past years, diplomacy was mainly concerned with security but this trend has changed in recent years to include other issues such as trade and measures against environmental degradation. These issues are called low politics issues and they have opened doors for Non-governmental organisations and International organisations in world politics. These non state actors have a great power in international relations since they influence influence the direction of policy making. The participation of these new actors has changed the nature of diplomacy which led to many arguing that diplomacy has changed from the old, concerned with traditional matters of security to the ‘new’ diplomacy.
Moreover, multilateral diplomacy has grown in importance chiefly because of the new players in the international scene and the new issues that have also become in the international agenda. This has made some suggesting that multilateral diplomacy suggests the demise of bilateral diplomacy and the examples of the European Union which has arguably not finished expanding and the most current one, the G 20 summit, illustrate this argument.