Friday 1 May 2009

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.

1 comment:

  1. Again taughful and good analysis. Indeed security issues have gone on top of the international agenda during the past eight years, however does not undermine the recognition of enviromental degradation in global matters.The refusal of the U.S. to join the Kyoto Protocol is a testament to the fact that Realism still dominates in International Relations. Trade diplomacy is important but not as important as security and enviromental diplomacy due to the fact that both are issues of life and death. There has to be life for trade to exist.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.