My judgment about the character of diplomacy really changed since the start of the module. It has allowed me to understand diplomacy much more than I did from the beginning and when I looked at the first impressions, I saw that my comprehension of diplomacy was limited, though not poor. In fact, I already understood that it is the practice of conducting dialogue or discussions between representatives of states through professional diplomats regarding mainly peace-keeping, war etc. I was also aware that international treaties are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to their endorsement by national politicians. However, now I acknowledge that in an interconnected world, diplomacy can no longer be only concerned with security and so on, that is, the issues of ‘high politics’ which are the pillars of the ‘old’ or traditional diplomacy but rather issues of ‘low politics’ which, as we can see, are increasingly becoming important both in size and in influence on the making of policies.
These ‘low politics’ issues are mainly the environment and trade which give an opportunity for non-state actors to rise powerfully in the international arena and therefore change the nature of diplomacy from ‘old’ to ‘new’ diplomacy.
In addition, the diplomacy of powerful states is not only limited to bilateral relations nowadays. Indeed, multilateral diplomacy is almost inevitable in a globalised world in which any matter in one particular place often has consequences in another. The most current and prominent example of multilateral/conference diplomacy that can be given is the G20 summit to discuss how to handle the current financial crisis.
Furthermore, I now know the impact that technological development such as the internet and television, products of globalisation, had on diplomacy and its institutions which have made the diffusion of news much faster and easier than traditional diplomacy. Nevertheless, in some places like Canada, Information and Communication technology (ICT) has proved to be a source of empowerment of their diplomatic services.
Thursday 30 April 2009
my understanding of diplomacy- ehtashamul haque
since we have started this module my understanding of diplomacy has changed a lot. diplomacys dynamics and branches has really made me realise how its playing a big role in shaping international affairs. the transformation of diplomacy to new structure and also the depth and area of diplomacy is now broader. diplomacy is a dicipline that allows states to negotiate and communicate with other states or non states entity to fullfill its objective. the difference between new and old diplomacy has showed the key changes that the diplomacy has embraced. the issues like security was the core focus of diplomacy before. but now diplomacy address major issues that globalisation has brought.e,g; trade, environment diplomacy. also the multilaterl diplomacy and the method of coducts are more clearer to me now. since the convention of vienna diplomacy has taken a new wait in world affirs. i have also learn about the phenomenon that new diplomacy has brought. the actors in diplomacy is now not only the states but also the NGOs, MNCs, even celebrities. I have also gained kowledge about the conference diplomacy which is a key element of new diplomacy. the idae of diplomacy is now in my mind is very clearer and broader and i think its depth is ever growing and interesting.
My understanding of Diplomacy
Beyond the basic understanding of the notion of diplomacy as being an art of dialogue between states, my grasp of the role of diplomacy in the world politics, at the start of the semester, was sketchy. I did not have a thorough knowledge of diplomacy to appreciate an increasingly important role it plays in world politics. Our world is besieged by problems that are complex and intractable and it is diplomacy that is being used as an effective tool to grapple with these issues. I believe that the very conduct of diplomacy by states, regardless of it’s successful outcome or not, gives a semblance of order in this otherwise anarchical society. The various forms and formats of diplomacy such as trade, environmental and security diplomacy underline the wide-ranging issues a state has to deal with and the importance diplomacy has given in addressing these.
My knowledge of diplomacy has been enhanced and this has allowed me to understand the dynamics of diplomacy in the interactions between states. I believe the diplomacy can be the most advantageous way in furthering a state’s particular objective. It is, indeed, the only way in achieving a common ground between states having divergent views. My study of this subject has been very insightful and the increase in my understanding of diplomacy has given me the chance to see the world politics in a different perspective. I have become more knoweledgeable about the way states promote their interests and how they achieve their objectives. The study of diplomacy has been a truly stimulating affair.
My knowledge of diplomacy has been enhanced and this has allowed me to understand the dynamics of diplomacy in the interactions between states. I believe the diplomacy can be the most advantageous way in furthering a state’s particular objective. It is, indeed, the only way in achieving a common ground between states having divergent views. My study of this subject has been very insightful and the increase in my understanding of diplomacy has given me the chance to see the world politics in a different perspective. I have become more knoweledgeable about the way states promote their interests and how they achieve their objectives. The study of diplomacy has been a truly stimulating affair.
My understanding of diplomacy today
My understanding of diplomacy has changed drastically I didn’t even know about ‘old’ or ‘new’ diplomacy as I just thought that diplomacy was an effective way of dealing with issues. Now however, I believe that diplomacy is the art of creating harmony and unity out of diverse opinions and diverse understanding. My views of diplomats were that they were paid a lot of money to live in a life of luxury and given a diplomatic passport which gave them access to every country and they had limousines waiting for them. This was not exactly true as Diplomats have a painstakingly hard job to fulfil, with long hours and sleepless nights and endless reading in red boxes to finish for the next day. The following skills are necessary for a diplomat: Oratory, building good relationships and the art of secrecy. The ability to negotiate with lots of other states is a true skill for a diplomat and the ability to convince the other party that what is good for their country will be good for the other countries involved as well.
It can be said that most issues of diplomacy have traditionally been settled by military force however nowadays we use new diplomacy which have a wider section of ways such as trade, security and the environment to negotiate this issues effectively. From institutions such as Red Cross to bigger Organisations like the United Nations or the EU all play an effective part in helping resolve issues, holding conferences where all nations are heard. Secrecy has also helped diplomacy but now institutions want a transparency between nations so as they know what the other person’s agenda is.
Diplomacy is dealt with on many levels, bilateral, multilateral and well nearly polylateral and this can mainly be seen on an international level. What I had hoped for was a better understanding of how diplomacy worked within countries and I didn’t really look at where I lived, I live in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Agreement was reached in Belfast in 1998. This agreement was essential for the troubles that went on between Ireland and England. Diplomacy was the only technique to be used, diplomats from Ireland, England and America and also with the help of Christian Churches they were able to ease the tension and provide an equal way for both to live in ‘somewhat’ harmony. They used a system called D’hondt – a system allocating party seats so it’s a fair representative for all people, they created a British Irish Intergovernmental congress to promote bilateral cooperation between the UK and Ireland as well as the equality commission and human rights commission to help the people that had been in the troubles and give them financial support.
So in my conclusion, I have been able to see that diplomacy is for the people and is not just for the elites and for international issues or conflicts, diplomacy is put in place to facilitate international relations and where national leaders cannot come to some arrangement diplomats are there to give more time and having done more research provide an appropriate agreement instead of just taking military action.
It can be said that most issues of diplomacy have traditionally been settled by military force however nowadays we use new diplomacy which have a wider section of ways such as trade, security and the environment to negotiate this issues effectively. From institutions such as Red Cross to bigger Organisations like the United Nations or the EU all play an effective part in helping resolve issues, holding conferences where all nations are heard. Secrecy has also helped diplomacy but now institutions want a transparency between nations so as they know what the other person’s agenda is.
Diplomacy is dealt with on many levels, bilateral, multilateral and well nearly polylateral and this can mainly be seen on an international level. What I had hoped for was a better understanding of how diplomacy worked within countries and I didn’t really look at where I lived, I live in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Agreement was reached in Belfast in 1998. This agreement was essential for the troubles that went on between Ireland and England. Diplomacy was the only technique to be used, diplomats from Ireland, England and America and also with the help of Christian Churches they were able to ease the tension and provide an equal way for both to live in ‘somewhat’ harmony. They used a system called D’hondt – a system allocating party seats so it’s a fair representative for all people, they created a British Irish Intergovernmental congress to promote bilateral cooperation between the UK and Ireland as well as the equality commission and human rights commission to help the people that had been in the troubles and give them financial support.
So in my conclusion, I have been able to see that diplomacy is for the people and is not just for the elites and for international issues or conflicts, diplomacy is put in place to facilitate international relations and where national leaders cannot come to some arrangement diplomats are there to give more time and having done more research provide an appropriate agreement instead of just taking military action.
My Understanding of Diplomacy Today - by Ernest Andreyevich Reid
We have certainly come a long way since we started this module. There is so much we have learned about the art of diplomacy in these three months, which has made the picture a hundred times clearer that it was in February. This module enabled us to learn of so many different types of diplomacy, demonstrating how it plays a role not only in high politics (e.g. security), but also in low politics (e.g. environment). We have learned how diplomacy evolved from the days of Ebla-Hamazi through to Cardinal Richelieu and present day, becoming instrumental in every aspect of world politics, from negotiating peace to shaping world economy, bilaterally (e.g. state-to-state) and multilaterally (through UN, EU and co-operating with NGOs). I personally have found Public Diplomacy of particular interest, as it made me realise that diplomacy does not have to be direct and confined to the walls of a conference hall, and will definitely carry out further reading on it during the summer. In conclusion, I must state that New Diplomacy was one of the most interesting and informative modules I have studied and the knowledge gained from it has significantly improved my understanding of International Relations. Thank you, Steven
My understanding of Diplomacy Today
Before I began to study this module Diplomacy, I was going into this module thinking in my mind that diplomacy is when two parties conduct and engage with one another. That diplomacy was conducted through by governments and are only tested when it comes to international crisis.
I remember giving the example of the Northern Ireland peace as an example of diplomacy, which lead to the Good Friday agreement. Having now studied this module, it has broadened my mind on the process of Diplomacy
The extent to which diplomacy is applied, from summit, to lunch diplomacy; the extent to which diplomacy is now conducted in so many phases has transformed my understanding of diplomacy. The growth of Celebrity diplomacy, has transformed the meaning of diplomacy, and the increasing of importance of NGO’s is still evident in the world today.
Diplomacy in a broader context is what I take from this module; the extent to which diplomacy is applied has helped me to understand the concept of diplomacy. Although I still maintained that diplomacy has evolved as the world evolved, the extent to which diplomacy to applied has come a long distance from previous diplomacy.
I remember giving the example of the Northern Ireland peace as an example of diplomacy, which lead to the Good Friday agreement. Having now studied this module, it has broadened my mind on the process of Diplomacy
The extent to which diplomacy is applied, from summit, to lunch diplomacy; the extent to which diplomacy is now conducted in so many phases has transformed my understanding of diplomacy. The growth of Celebrity diplomacy, has transformed the meaning of diplomacy, and the increasing of importance of NGO’s is still evident in the world today.
Diplomacy in a broader context is what I take from this module; the extent to which diplomacy is applied has helped me to understand the concept of diplomacy. Although I still maintained that diplomacy has evolved as the world evolved, the extent to which diplomacy to applied has come a long distance from previous diplomacy.
my understanding of diplomacy today
My understanding of diplomacy today?
My initial perception of diplomacy at the beginning of the module, was extremely vague, at least more so than now. I considered it to be more closely related to what is now best known as the ‘old’ diplomacy, assuming that it was merely (communicative) relations between states and its primary concerns focusing on issues of war and peace. However I now understand that it is a much more complex process, with a series of an ever growing numbers of players within the diplomatic world. The contemporary globalising world, demonstrates the importance of diplomacy, in terms of managing issues, which would not only concern single entities, but the majority of the world also. The technological and communications revolution has in some ways undermined the traditional structure o f diplomacy, and allowed new diplomatic innovations to take place, such as video conferencing. The forces of globalisation have ensured that diplomatic practices have expanded to a broader scope of interstate relations as well as the growing role of non state actors. Diplomacy appears to be an institution with many separate branches attached, with different diplomatic players concerning different issues, as well as the role on non diplomatic players depending on circumstances. It has proved to be a process which has and will continue to evolve adapting it self to changing forces surrounding it.
My initial perception of diplomacy at the beginning of the module, was extremely vague, at least more so than now. I considered it to be more closely related to what is now best known as the ‘old’ diplomacy, assuming that it was merely (communicative) relations between states and its primary concerns focusing on issues of war and peace. However I now understand that it is a much more complex process, with a series of an ever growing numbers of players within the diplomatic world. The contemporary globalising world, demonstrates the importance of diplomacy, in terms of managing issues, which would not only concern single entities, but the majority of the world also. The technological and communications revolution has in some ways undermined the traditional structure o f diplomacy, and allowed new diplomatic innovations to take place, such as video conferencing. The forces of globalisation have ensured that diplomatic practices have expanded to a broader scope of interstate relations as well as the growing role of non state actors. Diplomacy appears to be an institution with many separate branches attached, with different diplomatic players concerning different issues, as well as the role on non diplomatic players depending on circumstances. It has proved to be a process which has and will continue to evolve adapting it self to changing forces surrounding it.
My understanding of diplomacy today
Have your opinions about the role of diplomacy in world politics changed since the start of the module? Looking back on the ‘first impressions’ you wrote in the first lecture, how has your knowledge of this subject improved?
My perception of the term diplomacy has expanded during this course. When I look back I mostly think I understood the term as old diplomacy, or at least that it was closely linked to the work of embassies and official diplomats. Though in my first day letter I did note that NGO's, like the Red Cross, negotiating with states must be a part of new diplomacy. However, I guessed that changes in diplomacy mostly had been due to theoretical progress and not so much to do with technological progresses and with globalism. As we heard at the Danish embassy there is a move from geo-political oriented diplomacy to a more issue based diplomacy. Today I see that there are several different areas of diplomacy, like trade and environmental diplomacy, and that there has been a change in the last century from bilateral to almost polylateral, but even though old diplomacy is still at work among the new ways.
My perception of the term diplomacy has expanded during this course. When I look back I mostly think I understood the term as old diplomacy, or at least that it was closely linked to the work of embassies and official diplomats. Though in my first day letter I did note that NGO's, like the Red Cross, negotiating with states must be a part of new diplomacy. However, I guessed that changes in diplomacy mostly had been due to theoretical progress and not so much to do with technological progresses and with globalism. As we heard at the Danish embassy there is a move from geo-political oriented diplomacy to a more issue based diplomacy. Today I see that there are several different areas of diplomacy, like trade and environmental diplomacy, and that there has been a change in the last century from bilateral to almost polylateral, but even though old diplomacy is still at work among the new ways.
My understanding of diplomacy today
How do I perceive diplomacy today? It would probably be the more suitable question to ask myself. I was fortunate enough to grow up in a family of diplomats where diplomacy at first seemed to me as a fascinating job full of eternal lavishing parties, beautiful gowns and black ties and most of all impressive big buildings full of serious looking adults that barely smile. Well that was at least my impression as a child. Eventually when I grew up and woke up from my fantasy I realized that being a diplomat is an exhausting job requiring endless preparations, long working hours, a total devotion and most of all agility , good oratory ( convince the others that what is good for you is good for them) and most of all the establishment of good relationships in the country of residency. Of course masked secrecy is a very important element of diplomacy and is ever still present. Diplomacy has evolved through times like everything else around us. It is no longer reserved for aristocrats and conducted strictly between states. It is essential to mention globalization and its effects on diplomacy: the interconnectedness and interdependence have infiltrated all aspects of international relations from politics to economy and environment. States can no longer respond on their own to the challenges and the recourse to non-governmental resources such as NGO’s, MNC becomes a necessity. Terms such as multilateralism and shuttle diplomacy have become non-detachable elements of today’s diplomacy. Negotiations are conducted on multiple levels involving extensively non-state actors as well. Scrutiny and accountability are much more present , an additional pressure brought by the new information age where manipulation of public opinion becomes a tougher task .This leads us to the important role of public diplomacy in the success of constructive negotiations between states and the importance of soft power (reliability on diplomacy) to achieve greater results. And if I try to give a more precise definition of Diplomacy today the following will be: multilateral relations and negotiations involving non-state actors conducted between states.
My understanding of diplomacy today:
Since I choose the module I though it will be interesting topics and I was right. As many of my colleges I though all about diplomacy were embassies, bilateral relations and the ‘high politic meetings’ behind close doors. And I was completely wrong, now my understanding of diplomacy has gained enough knowledge about the subject, for today can discuss and analyze it. Today I know the outmode ‘bilateral relations’ had left it place to a more dynamic ‘multilateral relations’ a modernizing to the so called ‘old diplomacy’ to a ‘new diplomacy’ something that when I started the module I did know it exists. Examples as the G20 give place to this new diplomacy, with more open institutions, and how states conduct its policies in International Relations.
The participation in ‘new diplomacy’ of non state actors was something I briefly knew, now I know their great influence in the conduct of diplomacy, the huge impact of MNCs principally in the third world, the way they operated or they react to international and national policies. This module gave the knowledge that diplomacy its not just about politics, parliaments and security, that is also about public, trade and environmental diplomacy. The importance of NGOs or celebrities in environmental issues, such as Green Peace, Princess Diana or Bono who help widely around the world making a significantly difference in most of the cases. On other hand an open Trade diplomacy has transformed the economic system, the creation of the World Trade Organization or movements as ‘Free trade and Fair trade’, giving a chance to the society to participate in a more direct manner and at the same time benefiting to those who were not receiving what they deserve.
This module, has showed what is the real diplomacy that nations play, from the ‘old diplomacy‘ full of secrecy to a ‘new‘ transparent diplomacy. Although the basic and main ideas still are in both of them, new diplomacy has modernized and developed it to confront the new challenges a globalized world requires.
The participation in ‘new diplomacy’ of non state actors was something I briefly knew, now I know their great influence in the conduct of diplomacy, the huge impact of MNCs principally in the third world, the way they operated or they react to international and national policies. This module gave the knowledge that diplomacy its not just about politics, parliaments and security, that is also about public, trade and environmental diplomacy. The importance of NGOs or celebrities in environmental issues, such as Green Peace, Princess Diana or Bono who help widely around the world making a significantly difference in most of the cases. On other hand an open Trade diplomacy has transformed the economic system, the creation of the World Trade Organization or movements as ‘Free trade and Fair trade’, giving a chance to the society to participate in a more direct manner and at the same time benefiting to those who were not receiving what they deserve.
This module, has showed what is the real diplomacy that nations play, from the ‘old diplomacy‘ full of secrecy to a ‘new‘ transparent diplomacy. Although the basic and main ideas still are in both of them, new diplomacy has modernized and developed it to confront the new challenges a globalized world requires.
My Understanding of Diplomacy Today
Today I have a better understanding of diplomacy compared to the beginning of the course.
Diplomacy is still crucial at international relations to resolve differences or disputes in peaceful way between states; whether at bilateral or multilateral levels. Every state in the world has diplomatic representations in different capitals of the world not only to represent the interests of the states they represent, but also, to lobby and lern more about the host state's policies and interests. And due to the globalize world we leave in today, migration of people to different countries make consulates very important tool to support its citizens in the host state.
Officially, New Diplomacy has emerged after the World War I, when world leaders identified Traditional Diplomacy as the cause for wars in Europe. Thereafter, through the sixteen points of President Woodrow Wilson, multilateral diplomacy was seen as an option to avoid future wars. However, for various reasons, the new diplomacy did not prevent the World War II.
In the European Union for example, Traditional Diplomacy and New Diplomacy work in parallel with each other if you consider the fact that all member states are represented in the European Commission but at the same time they have bilateral Ambassadors. The first, works on common European issues and the second at bilateral level.
Traditional Diplomacy still crucial in finding peaceful solutions in crisis as it uses back channels in order to find a compromise between the sides. Back channel diplomacy has proved to be effective at the Cuban Nuclear Crisis and Cienfuegos Submarine Crisis in which both crisis, were concluded on peaceful means; thanks to Henry Kissinger’s secrecy diplomacy.
With the development of new technology, diplomats no longer monopolise the flowing of information as the world connectedness diminished their role. However, Diplomats have to negotiate face to face with their counterparts to persuade others of their country’s policies and areas of interest.
Although New diplomacy is more open and inclusive with non atate actors playing crucil role not only on technical expertise, but also the hability to mobilize citizens around the world to campaign on environmental, peace, fundrising for humanitarian aid, and above all they are capable of influencing some policies. But the only who can sighn trities are states.
Today I have a better understanding of diplomacy compared to the beginning of the course.
Diplomacy is still crucial at international relations to resolve differences or disputes in peaceful way between states; whether at bilateral or multilateral levels. Every state in the world has diplomatic representations in different capitals of the world not only to represent the interests of the states they represent, but also, to lobby and lern more about the host state's policies and interests. And due to the globalize world we leave in today, migration of people to different countries make consulates very important tool to support its citizens in the host state.
Officially, New Diplomacy has emerged after the World War I, when world leaders identified Traditional Diplomacy as the cause for wars in Europe. Thereafter, through the sixteen points of President Woodrow Wilson, multilateral diplomacy was seen as an option to avoid future wars. However, for various reasons, the new diplomacy did not prevent the World War II.
In the European Union for example, Traditional Diplomacy and New Diplomacy work in parallel with each other if you consider the fact that all member states are represented in the European Commission but at the same time they have bilateral Ambassadors. The first, works on common European issues and the second at bilateral level.
Traditional Diplomacy still crucial in finding peaceful solutions in crisis as it uses back channels in order to find a compromise between the sides. Back channel diplomacy has proved to be effective at the Cuban Nuclear Crisis and Cienfuegos Submarine Crisis in which both crisis, were concluded on peaceful means; thanks to Henry Kissinger’s secrecy diplomacy.
With the development of new technology, diplomats no longer monopolise the flowing of information as the world connectedness diminished their role. However, Diplomats have to negotiate face to face with their counterparts to persuade others of their country’s policies and areas of interest.
Although New diplomacy is more open and inclusive with non atate actors playing crucil role not only on technical expertise, but also the hability to mobilize citizens around the world to campaign on environmental, peace, fundrising for humanitarian aid, and above all they are capable of influencing some policies. But the only who can sighn trities are states.
My understanding of new-diplomacy
My first impression of diplomacy was that diplomacy is a game between two countries; they got interaction for different purpose (political or military ally). And that the new diplomacy was the same as the old one but called ‘new’ because of its internationalization. I think some part of the module confirmed my first impression, but more than that, it actually gives me the full prism. Yes ‘new’ and ‘old’ diplomacy are quite the same in a general way, but then, new diplomacy involves a wider range of issues, such as trade, public diplomacy or environment. It is dealt in a different way, through international or regional institution like the UN or the EU and multilateral treaties which mean more actors are involved. The complexity of the international system today asks for more transparency, openness and urgency, secrecy is still used, but the door is now open to non-state actors such as NGOs. The revolution in communication had allowed the general public to be more involved and the speed of information had put more pressure on state-actor, which result in the need to deal efficiently with problems and by that NGOs are more than welcome in meeting room, due to their specialisation. Plus globalization has given a new importance to diplomacy; giving a military answer to all problems is now kind of out dated especially in our nuclear age. And new issues such as environment have aroused that asks for general agreement, making the uses of ‘soft power’. I am surprise of the complexity of diplomacy, but in the same time it makes me even more interested in the subject.
Security, Trade and Environment
Due to the globalization, it is more difficult today to differenced security, trade and environment from each others; as trade and environment are include into the security field, and environment is taken as a trade issue. However, this linking does not result on a total fusion; there is still difference in the way they are seen and how they are dealt with.
Security and trade are seen as ‘high’ politic; they are considered ‘vital’ to the survival of the State, which means they are given full priority, and treated in the highest circle of politics by head of state/government with a full body of specialists. Even though they seemed to be equally important, the way they are dealt with are quite different. In international relations security is defined as ‘the immunity of the state to threats from outside its boundaries, by protecting and preserving the core values and principle of its society’ and as such it’s an exclusive State matter. Generally security is deal bilaterally, even though organization such as the EU or the UN gives way to multilateralism, but it is used for general treaties, states actors prefer bilaterally. It is highly qualified person who are entrusted with security, secrecy is a key point and public opinion is kept out of it, because of the high sensitivity of topics which can lead to disaster (e.g. the minister of the foreign office letting journalist take pictures of his notes, when coming out of a car, which nearly put an end to the capture of terrorist), in an international level it is an dangerous game, because of globalization more and more actors are playing in the foreign policy arena, which mean few information for a lot of player, and only the best can access the right information. The effectiveness and efficiency of foreign policies depends of how good their ‘foreign policy-machine’ is; how accurate are their information, how many people know about it (...Etc)
While Security is a delicate subject, trade in the other side is more open, there is less secrecy and involve more people; states as much as International Corporation or international organization (NGOs and IGOs) which means that multilateralism dominate. Trade is dealt in a more public way, and is in a process of transparency, but its complexity makes this process a difficult one, trade involves more and more issues and the Doha Agenda illustrate quite well that (service, investment, intellectual property etc...). As the field grow bigger so are the actors concurring in it, but its still require specialists and the general public is excluded from it.
Environmental diplomacy, in another hand even though considered as being ‘low politics’, is becoming more and more important. The biggest difference from the two other is that, an environmental issue involves everybody, which means that the public opinion can be involved. In fact, it is the public involvement which had made a ‘high politic’ matters nowadays, it is the social trend of recycling and the numerous advertisement and information given by organization such as Greenpeace &co to the general public which had made politicians rethink the importance of environmental issues. Because pollution does not respect borders or culture, a general agreement on environment is necessary, that’s how environmental diplomacy has emerged. It is divided in two parts; one dealing with natural resource matters (as they are starting to decrease), and another dealing with pollution which is increasing.
Security and trade are seen as ‘high’ politic; they are considered ‘vital’ to the survival of the State, which means they are given full priority, and treated in the highest circle of politics by head of state/government with a full body of specialists. Even though they seemed to be equally important, the way they are dealt with are quite different. In international relations security is defined as ‘the immunity of the state to threats from outside its boundaries, by protecting and preserving the core values and principle of its society’ and as such it’s an exclusive State matter. Generally security is deal bilaterally, even though organization such as the EU or the UN gives way to multilateralism, but it is used for general treaties, states actors prefer bilaterally. It is highly qualified person who are entrusted with security, secrecy is a key point and public opinion is kept out of it, because of the high sensitivity of topics which can lead to disaster (e.g. the minister of the foreign office letting journalist take pictures of his notes, when coming out of a car, which nearly put an end to the capture of terrorist), in an international level it is an dangerous game, because of globalization more and more actors are playing in the foreign policy arena, which mean few information for a lot of player, and only the best can access the right information. The effectiveness and efficiency of foreign policies depends of how good their ‘foreign policy-machine’ is; how accurate are their information, how many people know about it (...Etc)
While Security is a delicate subject, trade in the other side is more open, there is less secrecy and involve more people; states as much as International Corporation or international organization (NGOs and IGOs) which means that multilateralism dominate. Trade is dealt in a more public way, and is in a process of transparency, but its complexity makes this process a difficult one, trade involves more and more issues and the Doha Agenda illustrate quite well that (service, investment, intellectual property etc...). As the field grow bigger so are the actors concurring in it, but its still require specialists and the general public is excluded from it.
Environmental diplomacy, in another hand even though considered as being ‘low politics’, is becoming more and more important. The biggest difference from the two other is that, an environmental issue involves everybody, which means that the public opinion can be involved. In fact, it is the public involvement which had made a ‘high politic’ matters nowadays, it is the social trend of recycling and the numerous advertisement and information given by organization such as Greenpeace &co to the general public which had made politicians rethink the importance of environmental issues. Because pollution does not respect borders or culture, a general agreement on environment is necessary, that’s how environmental diplomacy has emerged. It is divided in two parts; one dealing with natural resource matters (as they are starting to decrease), and another dealing with pollution which is increasing.
My understanding of diplomacy today: Have your opinions about the role of diplomacy in world politics changed since the start of the module? Looking b
I can’t really say that my view and opinions have changed that much during the module, but I have definitely much more in-depth knowledge of how it all works. Before this module I had some fuzzy ideas about embassies and ambassadors that somehow maintained relations between countries and provided consular services to citizens abroad. Other than that I mainly associated diplomacy with the type of negotiation and mediation that people like Martti Ahtisaari often engage in in conflict situations.
Now I appreciate what a complex and important business diplomacy is, and how it differs depending on the questions that re being dealt with. State security still is a bit of a secret business that are dealt with according to the principles of the Old Diplomacy, which in a way makes sense as it often concerns very sensitive issues and states don’t always want other states to know what they are doing. Other, new types of issues (such as the problems with drug and people trafficking, organized crime and environmental issues, brought on by globalization), together with the realization that openness is crucial both from a democracy point of view and for the collective security of all states, have given rise to the so-called New Diplomacy, which is not really that new, but rather an extended and developed version of the Old Diplomacy. Together the two different categories of diplomacy form an excellent tool for states to use in their dealings with other states, and they complement rather than replace each other. I have also realized that states use diplomacy in widely different ways depending on the issue, their standing in international politics, who they are dealing with, their history and culture, and what their geopolitical situation looks like. It is therefore difficult to generalize how states use diplomacy; one always has to be clear about the context of the relations and what issues are at stake.
Finally, I have learned a lot about back channel diplomacy, which I thought was a very interesting area, and one that I did not know very much about from the start of the module.
Now I appreciate what a complex and important business diplomacy is, and how it differs depending on the questions that re being dealt with. State security still is a bit of a secret business that are dealt with according to the principles of the Old Diplomacy, which in a way makes sense as it often concerns very sensitive issues and states don’t always want other states to know what they are doing. Other, new types of issues (such as the problems with drug and people trafficking, organized crime and environmental issues, brought on by globalization), together with the realization that openness is crucial both from a democracy point of view and for the collective security of all states, have given rise to the so-called New Diplomacy, which is not really that new, but rather an extended and developed version of the Old Diplomacy. Together the two different categories of diplomacy form an excellent tool for states to use in their dealings with other states, and they complement rather than replace each other. I have also realized that states use diplomacy in widely different ways depending on the issue, their standing in international politics, who they are dealing with, their history and culture, and what their geopolitical situation looks like. It is therefore difficult to generalize how states use diplomacy; one always has to be clear about the context of the relations and what issues are at stake.
Finally, I have learned a lot about back channel diplomacy, which I thought was a very interesting area, and one that I did not know very much about from the start of the module.
Understanding of Diplomacy Today
My understanding of today’s practice of diplomacy has been greatly deepened and my opinions have changed to a greater extent.
Firstly what has been branded as ‘the new diplomacy’ is not that new but has rather evolved: an evolution, commensurate to the ever speedy dynamics of world politics.
The elements of the ‘old diplomacy’ or ‘traditional diplomacy’ premised on bilateral relations still remains an integral part of the varying facets of today’s global politics. This is apparent in the mutual exchange of sensitive security information between the USA and the UK. A typical example was their relentless pursuit of war against Iraq in 2003 amidst concerns expressed by intergovernmental organisations, non governmental organisations and a large section of the world populace.
Diplomacy has evolved because of the huge presence of non state actors in international politics- a situation very different from the notion of the state once seen as the sole and prime actor in world politics.
These non state actors especially NGOs, have played varying major roles through lobbying, representation and significant players in policy implementation and the influence of state behaviour.
Their global membership and smart use of modern communication technology coupled with a wide base of professionals and specialists makes knowledge diplomacy and indispensable tool buttressing the principles of multilateral relations- new diplomacy.
Typical examples are ‘Plane Stupid’ an NGO against the expansion of Heathrow Airport and Green Peace- campaigning for a safer, greener planet through a massive reduction in carbon emissions.
The conduct of trade diplomacy, through the constant promotion of ‘free trade’ ideals instead of ‘fair trade’ by advanced countries greatly puts developing nations at a disadvantage who lack resources: skilled labour, technical know how and access to the manufacture and exchange of current technology used in this contemporary world of business. (TRIPPS- trade related aspects of intellectual property rights and TRIMS-trade related investment measures) are relevant examples to this concept.
The conduct diplomacy between the ‘East and West’ relations has dramatically improved. President Obama’s visit to Turkey, US-Iranian relations through sports diplomacy and the use of ‘Soft power’ instead of hard power in dealing with the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a great leap in the democratisation of world politics.
I am greatly impressed by the conduct of today’s diplomacy so far.
My understanding of today’s practice of diplomacy has been greatly deepened and my opinions have changed to a greater extent.
Firstly what has been branded as ‘the new diplomacy’ is not that new but has rather evolved: an evolution, commensurate to the ever speedy dynamics of world politics.
The elements of the ‘old diplomacy’ or ‘traditional diplomacy’ premised on bilateral relations still remains an integral part of the varying facets of today’s global politics. This is apparent in the mutual exchange of sensitive security information between the USA and the UK. A typical example was their relentless pursuit of war against Iraq in 2003 amidst concerns expressed by intergovernmental organisations, non governmental organisations and a large section of the world populace.
Diplomacy has evolved because of the huge presence of non state actors in international politics- a situation very different from the notion of the state once seen as the sole and prime actor in world politics.
These non state actors especially NGOs, have played varying major roles through lobbying, representation and significant players in policy implementation and the influence of state behaviour.
Their global membership and smart use of modern communication technology coupled with a wide base of professionals and specialists makes knowledge diplomacy and indispensable tool buttressing the principles of multilateral relations- new diplomacy.
Typical examples are ‘Plane Stupid’ an NGO against the expansion of Heathrow Airport and Green Peace- campaigning for a safer, greener planet through a massive reduction in carbon emissions.
The conduct of trade diplomacy, through the constant promotion of ‘free trade’ ideals instead of ‘fair trade’ by advanced countries greatly puts developing nations at a disadvantage who lack resources: skilled labour, technical know how and access to the manufacture and exchange of current technology used in this contemporary world of business. (TRIPPS- trade related aspects of intellectual property rights and TRIMS-trade related investment measures) are relevant examples to this concept.
The conduct diplomacy between the ‘East and West’ relations has dramatically improved. President Obama’s visit to Turkey, US-Iranian relations through sports diplomacy and the use of ‘Soft power’ instead of hard power in dealing with the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a great leap in the democratisation of world politics.
I am greatly impressed by the conduct of today’s diplomacy so far.
My understanding of diplomacy today:
My views on the role of diplomacy in world politics have not changed significantly, but instead it was enriched as I gained more knowledge regarding to the subject itself. Where before I used to relate the notion of diplomacy with the need to merely maintain good relations with other nation- states in order to prevent war and other conflicts, and to promote each other cultures and costumes. I now acknowledged that it touches on various issues from wars, security, and trade to environmental problems or even poverty. This module presented me with not just a much broader and complex form of relation between nation- states, but also with a very much strong relation between other entities such as the NGOs and many individuals.
There has been a point where it became a bit confusing as I was trying to establish whether there are two variables of the notion of diplomacy or not (“Old” diplomacy and “New” diplomacy), but it became clear as the course went on that diplomacy is only one but it has being adapted over the time and still is. And to back up my view I looked at the work of Brian Whites and agreed with him in many of his views; he reached a point where he said that the main ideas behind diplomacy are still identical being the most noticeable alterations from bilateral to multilateral diplomacy, and the formation of diplomacy as a specific profession; meaning that diplomacy itself suffered many adaptations, this due to the way world politics is being shaped as well, it gained new apparatus which facilitated its evolution; for example: technology which is the main apparatus that transformed diplomacy - if before there was the need for diplomats to travel for hours to meet and negotiate, today it became much easier with the use of internet and computers, airplanes and many other gadgets (shuttle diplomacy term mentioned by the former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger). But we can never take away the need for us to have as a diplomatic service the embassies; because they play a big role in it all, embassies exist to represent individuals of a specific country which are abroad. In a case of needing political representation, consulate service or dealing with visas these entities are the best alternative.
To summarise all of my views expressed here together, it is more than appropriate to state that diplomacy is here to stay once more, whether good or bad in some ways, pleasing some and not others it will still play one of the central objectives of the international politics which is to maintain good relations among all the nation- states regardless of differences and disputes.
There has been a point where it became a bit confusing as I was trying to establish whether there are two variables of the notion of diplomacy or not (“Old” diplomacy and “New” diplomacy), but it became clear as the course went on that diplomacy is only one but it has being adapted over the time and still is. And to back up my view I looked at the work of Brian Whites and agreed with him in many of his views; he reached a point where he said that the main ideas behind diplomacy are still identical being the most noticeable alterations from bilateral to multilateral diplomacy, and the formation of diplomacy as a specific profession; meaning that diplomacy itself suffered many adaptations, this due to the way world politics is being shaped as well, it gained new apparatus which facilitated its evolution; for example: technology which is the main apparatus that transformed diplomacy - if before there was the need for diplomats to travel for hours to meet and negotiate, today it became much easier with the use of internet and computers, airplanes and many other gadgets (shuttle diplomacy term mentioned by the former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger). But we can never take away the need for us to have as a diplomatic service the embassies; because they play a big role in it all, embassies exist to represent individuals of a specific country which are abroad. In a case of needing political representation, consulate service or dealing with visas these entities are the best alternative.
To summarise all of my views expressed here together, it is more than appropriate to state that diplomacy is here to stay once more, whether good or bad in some ways, pleasing some and not others it will still play one of the central objectives of the international politics which is to maintain good relations among all the nation- states regardless of differences and disputes.
my understanding of diplomacy today?
My understanding of Diplomacy has changed and improved throughout the course in many ways. My first impression of diplomacy was quite traditional in a sense of ‘old diplomacy’. I connected diplomacy with Embassies, secret diplomacy and conference diplomacy, diplomacy was for me just high level politics. I have learned that diplomacy happens on multiple levels with all sorts of participants. I would never have considered celebrities as part of diplomacy. I have learned that MNC’s, NGOs play a role on different levels of diplomacy. Diplomacy is far more complex and complicated than 100 years ago and has to face more challenges than ever before. It is going to be interesting which ways diplomacy will take in the future.
The differentiation between ‘new’ and ‘old’ diplomacy is in my opinion not really useful. The distinction between ‘old’ diplomacy and ‘new diplomacy’ is not clear, old diplomacy is still part of the so called ‘new’ diplomacy. An indicator for this is the EU. The law of the EU is made in Brussels, where all member-states have permanent representation in the COREPER. Embassies still remain in the member-states, and a transformation of their responsibilities and tasks has taken place. In some cases Embassies, especially in important cities like London, are regarded as more important than ever before. A transformation of ‘bilateral diplomacy’ has taken place in the EU. The tendency and the future transformation of diplomacy will determine the future of the EU.
My understanding of diplomacy today.
At the very beginning of the module my understanding of diplomacy, its traditional history was very limited , looking at the 'first impressions' note , i think i was on the right track of having the idea that diplomacy was about state relations and negotiations, but throughout the whole semester i have come to understand that was just the small bit of the whole system. At the very least , i did not know diplomacy was divided into new and old , but in my opinion , due to the emergence of new technology and the interconnectedness of the world and also because of the growing number of states being involved in the matter, the traditional diplomacy was facing big challenges to adapt new categories. My view is that , state to state negotiations is still strong and important as an example, previously we have learned that EU members prefer to operate on bilateral basis.
Moreover , i am now aware of all the different kinds of diplomacy and how they operate on international stage and apart from that , i have learned that not only states play in the game , but also other actors like NGO's , MNC's . Surprisingly , the NGO's have played a vital role in diplomacy especially when it comes to environmental problems, NGO's like Greenpeace have the the influence, the power and the economic ability to tackle with the problem.
Finally , i have come to realize many things and had many questions in mind , like how the situation was back at the time , when the 1 and 2 Wolrd Wars happened and even though diplomacy was effectively used by then , why negotiations failed and etc. I have to say , there was a lot more to learn in diplomacy than i have thought before taking the module and i have really enjoyed the module.
Moreover , i am now aware of all the different kinds of diplomacy and how they operate on international stage and apart from that , i have learned that not only states play in the game , but also other actors like NGO's , MNC's . Surprisingly , the NGO's have played a vital role in diplomacy especially when it comes to environmental problems, NGO's like Greenpeace have the the influence, the power and the economic ability to tackle with the problem.
Finally , i have come to realize many things and had many questions in mind , like how the situation was back at the time , when the 1 and 2 Wolrd Wars happened and even though diplomacy was effectively used by then , why negotiations failed and etc. I have to say , there was a lot more to learn in diplomacy than i have thought before taking the module and i have really enjoyed the module.
Wednesday 29 April 2009
My understanding of diplomacy
I have to confess that at the beginning of this module, my knowledge of diplomacy was somewhat limited. I was very aware of the classical aspects of diplomacy such as the pomp and ceremony that accompanies it and areas such as consulates and embassies. I can now safely say that my knowledge has greatly improved and I have found the module fascinating.
I can now see the advances that diplomacy has made, from the secretive narrow minded world of old to the all encompassing, high speed, multilateral diplomatic world we now have. I personally believe that the inclusion of MNCs, NGOs and other groups is a great thing. Bringing many different fields together to tackle major problems facing the world as opposed to the older form of diplomacy, combined with new approaches such as shuttle diplomacy has made a great deal of difference issues like the environment and human rights. Prior to this module I didn’t realise the extent to which MNCs and NGOs were involved in diplomacy.
Overall I don’t feel that there are or were two rigid types of diplomacy, old and new but diplomacy has in-fact evolved and moved with the times. Events such as the first and second world wars changed the world and with it diplomacy has followed suit.
In this modern world speed is of the essence and through knowledge crucial. This again is something the diplomatic community has realised with diplomats’ now being well educated individuals from differing backgrounds instead of coming exclusively from the aristocracy.
I do feel that some elements of secrecy are still valid today, particularly in regard to security, a vital area for all states and an area which should not be open to scrutiny in the public domain.
Overall diplomacy has changed massively over the years and will continue to do so. For some to suggest that it is outdated and unnecessary seems an illogical argument.
I can now see the advances that diplomacy has made, from the secretive narrow minded world of old to the all encompassing, high speed, multilateral diplomatic world we now have. I personally believe that the inclusion of MNCs, NGOs and other groups is a great thing. Bringing many different fields together to tackle major problems facing the world as opposed to the older form of diplomacy, combined with new approaches such as shuttle diplomacy has made a great deal of difference issues like the environment and human rights. Prior to this module I didn’t realise the extent to which MNCs and NGOs were involved in diplomacy.
Overall I don’t feel that there are or were two rigid types of diplomacy, old and new but diplomacy has in-fact evolved and moved with the times. Events such as the first and second world wars changed the world and with it diplomacy has followed suit.
In this modern world speed is of the essence and through knowledge crucial. This again is something the diplomatic community has realised with diplomats’ now being well educated individuals from differing backgrounds instead of coming exclusively from the aristocracy.
I do feel that some elements of secrecy are still valid today, particularly in regard to security, a vital area for all states and an area which should not be open to scrutiny in the public domain.
Overall diplomacy has changed massively over the years and will continue to do so. For some to suggest that it is outdated and unnecessary seems an illogical argument.
My Understanding of Diplomacy
My understanding of Diplomacy has changed dramatically since the beginning of the semester. I perceived diplomacy very much in the terms of what i would now describe as pre-Wilsonian, namely as the secretive conversations between two or more states with regard to shared issues. I had the opinion that, to quote Ambrose Bierce
'Diplomacy, the patriotic art of lying for one's country'
This of course is not what diplomacy stands for today. As the world has globalized and countries have needed to cooperate and converse on a level never before needed, diplomacy has moved from the shadows into the forefront of politics. There is not a single area of governing that is not covered by diplomacy, from security and economics (as shown by this years G20 summit) to the environment and even 'selling' of a country. Without diplomats countries would not have eyes and ears on the ground, to carry out and influence policy. Without embassies there would be no first port-of-call for nationals abroad. It is necessary for the homogeny and smooth running of international relations. The recent communications between Havana and Washington for example would have been very difficult without diplomacy, leaders may not want to meet face to face for fear of an embarrassing impasse and communication through a single third party could easily turn into a dangerous game of chinese whispers.
The subtlety of modern diplomacy has allowed countries to wield 'soft' power in situations which may otherwise have been settled through military power, boycotts or volatile public statements. The ability to cajole and even threaten delicately, to make another state aware of the steps you are willing to take without having to take them has, it can be argued made the world a safer place.
To quote Theodore Roosevelt on the subject
'Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.'
The final important aspect of New diplomacy in my opinion is the role the public play. Public diplomacy allows countries to talk directly with the inhabitants of other states, it allows people to hear things 'straight from the horses mouth'. The other side of this is that publicized summit diplomacy puts public pressure on governments to come to agreements. This level of public involvement in politics is, in my opinion a defining factor of the age of New Diplomacy
My Understanding of Diplomacy
I recall the very first day of The New Diplomacy lecture i personally had limited knowledge of what diplomacy meant. My knowledge at the time was it had to do with legitimate representative of state overseas negotiating on behalf of his/her state and it involved a process of bilateral negotiations and mediations between two states (state-to-state) contact and also a process of multilateral negotiations of many states in international conferences such as the European Union (E.U) and the United Nations (U.N). After reading voraciously in the ensuing months i came across with various aspect of diplomacy such as the 'new' and the 'old'. I then realized the intensity of negotiation within diplomatic post in Brussels and New York required the use of 'old' diplomacy (some may disagree with me) but My view about 'new' and 'old' diplomacy is that old is still significantly important as secrecy enables the smooth running of an agreement leading to set a consensus whereas new diplomacy allows the flow of informations to divulge and this can undermine the 'actual' process of negotiations.
Following our trips at the Danish Embassy and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in this semester i realized that staff at embassies take a crucial role in following negotiation instructions from the sending state in contrast, the Foreign Office policy desk officer in Burma Karen Maddocks pointed out that the British embassy in Burma thats assist their colleagues based in Brussels when they deal with a policy which has some links with Burma.
Nevertheless, i believe that since the major tragedies that the world had seen prior the 21st century such as World War Two diplomacy has taken a different form as i had explained above. However even do there are new approaches the practice of 'old' diplomacy will be used until the forseeable future.
Finally, Diplomacy thats not represents the state solely; officials represents their state as they are formally accredited and they engage in the art of 'high-level' negotiations. I do emphasize that diplomacy enables to appease some situations of conlfict by the use of soft power. Unfortunately following the strategic blunder by former U.S President George W Bush, the military invasion of Iraq has allowed Iran to get greater influence in the Middle East but this remains to be seen.
My understanding of diplomacy
Looking back to the beginning of the module, my knowledge of the various kinds of diplomacy, its history and the ways in which is has evolved was quite limited. I viewed it as a process of negotiations and discussions in state-to-state relations. I am now aware of the different forms of diplomacy - trade, environmental and security - and the way in which the processes of diplomacy differ between them. Furthermore, it is now clear to me that diplomacy is not exclusive to states. It can encompass NGOs, MNCs and even celebrities, and increasingly we are seeing these actors as significant diplomats. Having explored the idea of a 'new' diplomacy, it seems clear that rather than a defined difference between 'new' and 'old', the process of diplomacy has evolved and adapted in order to accommodate new actors, conference diplomacy, shuttle diplomacy, openness and inclusivity. These changes have been brought about by technological advances like the internet, cheap air fare etc. Some argue that these changes undermine the relevancy of diplomacy today - however during the module, exploring the work of embassies and other diplomatic activity has highlighted that it still plays a vital role in the international system. In saying this, it is apparent that elements of 'old' diplomacy still remain, particularly when looking at security issues we can see that the element of secrecy and exclusivity is still present. Overall, what I have come to understand is that, if indeed there is a clear 'new' and 'old' diplomacy, that the two forms are not mutually exclusive and can be in play alongside each other within the international system. Overall, my understanding of diplomacy has increased significantly and I have been suprised at how much there actually was to learn. I would say that I have developed quite strong opinions regarding certain aspects of diplomacy, particularly the role of non state actors. There was far more to diplomacy than I had orginally anticipated and I have thoroughly enjoyed the module.
Tuesday 28 April 2009
My understanding of diplomacy today?
My initial understanding of diplomacy was more in line with the traditional notion of diplomacy seeing it ‘just’ as the formal interaction between states either on a bilateral basis or on a multilateral basis without really appreciating the versatile nature and the openness and inclusiveness of issues and actors. However, over the past months I have managed to get a more in-depth insight into the multi-levelled diversity of issues and actors which all play an important role. Nevertheless, I am now aware of the increasingly complex nature of diplomacy, but as many of my fellow bloggers I too do not agree with the distinction between so-called ‘new’ and ‘old’ diplomacy as I have earlier stated I do not believe they are mutual exclusive, but they can complement each other as 'old' instruments, structures and processes have not become obsolete despite of globalisation and its ‘blessings’ but has adapted as new tasks have appeared and will continue to do so.
My understanding of diplomacy today
My understanding of diplomacy has changed in many ways as a result of taking this module. I have become fully aware of the complexity that is the art and practice of negotiations between states and of governing relations between states. Diplomacy has undoubtedly always been a complex matter, and the difficulties of manoeuvring among different states with different national interest, has been proved by the fact that many found the way diplomacy was conducted was a key factor in the outbreak of war in 1914. However, with the growing number of states involved in diplomatic relations and with the ever widening number of issues that these states have to deal with, the complexity of diplomacy has only increased. As a result, conference diplomacy has increased and in order to make up for the lack of expertise in some areas, diplomats have seen the necessity to bring different elements of civil society into the decision making process.
The distinction that is often made between old and new diplomacy is not as clear as one might think. There have certainly been changes in the structure and conduct of diplomacy over the years; however it has happened as a gradual process. Many of the features of the so called old diplomacy still exist today alongside new diplomacy. As an example, the developments in the EU show how bilateral institutions of diplomacy are still considered important with the continued existence of traditional embassies of one member country in the capital of another member country, despite the fact that all have permanent representations to the EU. Traditional embassies and permanent representations to the EU fulfil different roles that are still rendered important.
The distinction that is often made between old and new diplomacy is not as clear as one might think. There have certainly been changes in the structure and conduct of diplomacy over the years; however it has happened as a gradual process. Many of the features of the so called old diplomacy still exist today alongside new diplomacy. As an example, the developments in the EU show how bilateral institutions of diplomacy are still considered important with the continued existence of traditional embassies of one member country in the capital of another member country, despite the fact that all have permanent representations to the EU. Traditional embassies and permanent representations to the EU fulfil different roles that are still rendered important.
Monday 27 April 2009
My understanding of diplomacy today
First of all, considering my previous limited understanding of diplomacy, I would not say that my opinion has changed but rather that I gained some knowledge, which has allowed me to choose where to stand, for example, on the importance of diplomacy in today’s international system. I have learnt of differences that I was not previously aware about the traditional and the new diplomacy; From that I concluded, there is no such a distinctive line separating them apart; I do not agree that a new type of diplomacy has emerged after the first World War but rather that diplomacy has evolved due the pressure of modernization; old practices was forced to adjust the demands coming not only from a complex, interconnected and modernised world but also from a better engaged public and the propagation of new participants. Let’s just consider the challenges for the diplomatic corps that the bombardment of information coming from the new global communication infrastructure of the Internet (CNN) represents. As pointed by Madeleine Albright, “large numbers of information systems make diplomacy much harder to carry on,” Everybody wants an answer as faster as they got the information. The problem with this is that the foreign office usually does not have enough time to digest the information and give an accurate position on the matter.
Nonetheless, acknowledging changes do not imply that the traditional system has disappeared or that became irrelevant. On the contrary, thanks to globalisation, the importance of consular services abroad has been enhanced. Embassies assistance to their nationals on foreign countries is area, for example, that is not given enough consideration. Furthermore, representation is crucial to have your views put across and states that cannot afford it usually are left behind in international negotiations. The same can be said about diplomatic strategies of bilateral and multilateral modes of engagement. Multilateralism has become increasingly important and complex, but bilateralism remains significant, and in many contexts they interact. Bilateral negotiation within EU countries is still widely practiced. So one does not need to be opted out in favour of the other, in many circunstances, they are intertwined.
Sunday 26 April 2009
My understanding of diplomacy today
Thinking back on the day of a snowy Monday morning when we have been asked to answer very simple questions, makes me wonder how people do not understand the true meaning of diplomacy today. I have been asked many before taking the module what it is going to be about. Although I had some ideas I certainly did not think that diplomacy has so many branches or that it exists for thousands of years. Reading back my own and other blog entries, made me realize that in fact it is a nice line up and shows a sort of chronological order of how diplomacy evolved. The first misjudgment I made at the beginning of the module was placing new diplomacy somewhere around 1990´s (essentially when the Cold War ended). Secondly, I was not aware of all the actors and their role within diplomacy. Now I am aware that NGOs and non state actors form a vital part of diplomacy. What is perhaps more surprising that not only organizations but even individuals have roles within diplomacy. I believe it was in Brian White’s chapter where he talked about international students as diplomats. Most of us think about diplomacy as a peaceful way of solving conflicts, disagreements. It is interesting how every day activities such as sport events or dinners can be diplomatic events. Good example of this is the US wrestling team sent to Iran in 1979 and how it was a successful non-official exchange between the two hostile countries. Since then, “Wrestling diplomacy” has its meaning. This is only a small example to illustrate how diplomacy borders were pushed wider. Diplomacy is not an activity played by states only; it goes way deeper in our everyday life without us even being aware of it.
My understanding of diplomacy today
Looking back on my first blog post and reading what I wrote two and a half months ago makes me think about how my understanding and my perspective of diplomacy has transformed. I must say I only knew the basic understanding of diplomacy before taking this module. Reading the origins of diplomacy was very educational as well as Brian whites in take on diplomacy, moreover how he distinguished between traditional and current forms of diplomacy. Furthermore I have obtained a wide variety of information regarding Non State actors and there input in the practice of diplomacy. By reading about multi-lateral and by-lateral diplomacy, I have a better understanding of how states and other entities conduct themselves regarding diplomatic matters in International Relations. Reading over many of the case studies during this module surrounding diplomacy taught me and helped me to distinguishes between old forms of diplomacy for example bilateral diplomacy, security diplomacy trade diplomacy, track 1 diplomacy and the present form of diplomacy
My understanding of diplomacy today also assists me in understanding the new concept of diplomacy, also how diplomacy is evolving dramatically. Environmental diplomacy, track two diplomacy NGO’S and in some sense trade diplomacy, shuttle diplomacy and multi-lateral negotiation are now considered as new diplomacy. My understandings of all six concepts of were primitive, now I have a better comprehension of all of these impressions of diplomacy. For example the notion of shuttle diplomacy, this form of diplomacy was displayed during the Arab- Israeli conflict which occurred in 1967In 1973 Former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger was the individual who coined the term “shuttle diplomacy” because of the numerous amount of times he went back and forth between the two groups and the U.S. by aircraft.
Diplomacy today in my opinion has some new challenges to face, globalization, the environment/ climate change, depleted resources and currently the economic crisis. Several of these form’s of diplomacy, which I have mentioned may be able to encourage many different entities to resolve these problems together by summits and multi-lateral talks. For instance the Rio summit Brazil in 1992 encouraged State leaders to reduce the amount of c02 they put into the Earth’s atmosphere. This summit was attended my several NGO’S heads of state and other organizations. Due to the fact that Ngo’s and the media were involved during the summit allowed the public to become aware of climate change and to act in reducing the damage. Currently 190 countries have signed the Kyoto protocol an agreement which was created due to the Rio summit in 1992.Diplomacy today does not just relate to embassies or state visits, but a whole Varity of different ideas, entireties and organizations, one thing I have learned over the past few months is how the Practice of diplomacy has become versatile and open to new ideas.
My understanding of diplomacy today also assists me in understanding the new concept of diplomacy, also how diplomacy is evolving dramatically. Environmental diplomacy, track two diplomacy NGO’S and in some sense trade diplomacy, shuttle diplomacy and multi-lateral negotiation are now considered as new diplomacy. My understandings of all six concepts of were primitive, now I have a better comprehension of all of these impressions of diplomacy. For example the notion of shuttle diplomacy, this form of diplomacy was displayed during the Arab- Israeli conflict which occurred in 1967In 1973 Former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger was the individual who coined the term “shuttle diplomacy” because of the numerous amount of times he went back and forth between the two groups and the U.S. by aircraft.
Diplomacy today in my opinion has some new challenges to face, globalization, the environment/ climate change, depleted resources and currently the economic crisis. Several of these form’s of diplomacy, which I have mentioned may be able to encourage many different entities to resolve these problems together by summits and multi-lateral talks. For instance the Rio summit Brazil in 1992 encouraged State leaders to reduce the amount of c02 they put into the Earth’s atmosphere. This summit was attended my several NGO’S heads of state and other organizations. Due to the fact that Ngo’s and the media were involved during the summit allowed the public to become aware of climate change and to act in reducing the damage. Currently 190 countries have signed the Kyoto protocol an agreement which was created due to the Rio summit in 1992.Diplomacy today does not just relate to embassies or state visits, but a whole Varity of different ideas, entireties and organizations, one thing I have learned over the past few months is how the Practice of diplomacy has become versatile and open to new ideas.
Saturday 25 April 2009
My understanding of diplomacy today
At the beginning of the semester my understanding of diplomacy entailed the sort of 'diplomacy' which symbolized an apparatus through which various relations among states in the international arena was administered. The term also signified the legitimate representation, carries out by legitimate representative of a sovereign state/monarch in overseas territories.
Today, ‘diplomacy’ incorporates a much more complex and intertwined agenda and role within international affairs. Apart from acting as a mere representative of one’s home country, a 21st century diplomat carries endless tasks ranging from the daily-administrations in the resident embassy to fostering the relationship between the host and home country via the promotion and exchange of cultural, social and traditional values. Given the nature of today’s interconnected world has led governments and their foreign representatives to actively engage in ‘public diplomacy’, which according to Melissen, is the gradual building of trust and credibility of states (for positive foreign perceptions), public diplomacy also cultivates and establishes bridges between diverse cultures through exchange programmes, routine summits, talk-shop bilateral and multilateral gatherings, state visits as well as national events (aiming to boost the both tourism and cultural qualities) such as the Holland Flower Festival; the Cherry Blossom Time; the Venice Carnival or the Rio de Janeiro Carnival; Spain's Los Sanfermines in Pamplona: bull running or the Banquet for Monkeys near Lop Buri (central Thailand) where over 600 monkeys gather down for lunch. All the aforementioned events are designed to attract both home and foreign audiences, as well as to enhance a country's distinct uniqueness and style.
Diplomacy is not only about representing one’s government in foreign land, but also to represent its cultural qualities, way-of-life and the overall exporting of the country’s ‘brand’ to foreign publics.
The interesting conception of ‘soft power’ as proposed by Nye is much of an intriguing idea when integrated into diplomatic affairs. Nye claims that soft power is the deployment of ‘cultural and commercial’ potentials, as opposed to the application of more corrupt form of power such as ‘carrots’ as payments, or coercive use of ‘sticks’. All in all, modern diplomacy is executing traditional functions of diplomatic practices as well as newer roles such as the PR of a country, in terms of its image, reputation and value being judged abroad. Today’s diplomacy no longer connotes ideas of tight secrecy behind closed doors; many themes on the diplomatic agenda is gradually becoming more transparent and open, incorporating new actors such as NGOs, TNCs and IOs, rendering diplomacy a transnational business.
Contemporary diplomacy is also working towards establishing commonly-agreed norms, such as the UN Charter for Human Rights, which directly challenges the traditional value of a state’s sovereignty by implying that foreign states might have concerns regarding how a particular state is treating its citizens. Furthermore, humanitarian intervention, labour standards, environmental concerns and global issues such as terrorism and WMD all further challenge the significance of sovereignty.
Today’s diplomatic engagements thus include a much complex and multi-facet agenda that goes beyond states-states relations, but encompasses mutual concerns such as transboundary environmental concerns which again illustrates the significance of an interconnected world (i.e pollution, and exploitation of natural resources of one country holds rather negative long term repercussion for another country).
Today, ‘diplomacy’ incorporates a much more complex and intertwined agenda and role within international affairs. Apart from acting as a mere representative of one’s home country, a 21st century diplomat carries endless tasks ranging from the daily-administrations in the resident embassy to fostering the relationship between the host and home country via the promotion and exchange of cultural, social and traditional values. Given the nature of today’s interconnected world has led governments and their foreign representatives to actively engage in ‘public diplomacy’, which according to Melissen, is the gradual building of trust and credibility of states (for positive foreign perceptions), public diplomacy also cultivates and establishes bridges between diverse cultures through exchange programmes, routine summits, talk-shop bilateral and multilateral gatherings, state visits as well as national events (aiming to boost the both tourism and cultural qualities) such as the Holland Flower Festival; the Cherry Blossom Time; the Venice Carnival or the Rio de Janeiro Carnival; Spain's Los Sanfermines in Pamplona: bull running or the Banquet for Monkeys near Lop Buri (central Thailand) where over 600 monkeys gather down for lunch. All the aforementioned events are designed to attract both home and foreign audiences, as well as to enhance a country's distinct uniqueness and style.
Diplomacy is not only about representing one’s government in foreign land, but also to represent its cultural qualities, way-of-life and the overall exporting of the country’s ‘brand’ to foreign publics.
The interesting conception of ‘soft power’ as proposed by Nye is much of an intriguing idea when integrated into diplomatic affairs. Nye claims that soft power is the deployment of ‘cultural and commercial’ potentials, as opposed to the application of more corrupt form of power such as ‘carrots’ as payments, or coercive use of ‘sticks’. All in all, modern diplomacy is executing traditional functions of diplomatic practices as well as newer roles such as the PR of a country, in terms of its image, reputation and value being judged abroad. Today’s diplomacy no longer connotes ideas of tight secrecy behind closed doors; many themes on the diplomatic agenda is gradually becoming more transparent and open, incorporating new actors such as NGOs, TNCs and IOs, rendering diplomacy a transnational business.
Contemporary diplomacy is also working towards establishing commonly-agreed norms, such as the UN Charter for Human Rights, which directly challenges the traditional value of a state’s sovereignty by implying that foreign states might have concerns regarding how a particular state is treating its citizens. Furthermore, humanitarian intervention, labour standards, environmental concerns and global issues such as terrorism and WMD all further challenge the significance of sovereignty.
Today’s diplomatic engagements thus include a much complex and multi-facet agenda that goes beyond states-states relations, but encompasses mutual concerns such as transboundary environmental concerns which again illustrates the significance of an interconnected world (i.e pollution, and exploitation of natural resources of one country holds rather negative long term repercussion for another country).
Friday 24 April 2009
Trade and Environment Diplomacy
security, trade and environment differs in many ways but the key differences between three of them are. the security is bilateral and the meetings are held in secrecy and on the other hand trade and environment are multilateral, and are more open process and considered to be 'low politics'
In order to exchange information of current affairs concerning security issues in which to enhance cooperation or to settle the crises many head of states themselves or by their respective advisers had been held successful secret meetings for example when Egypt was in Economic meltdown, the Egypt president had to reach an agreement with Israel in order to get economic aid from America. In return the Egypt would change its policy of propaganda attack of anti-Israel and also allow Israel to use the Suez Canal but without the Israel flag. At that time the negotiations had been held successfully but remained secret from public. And also the Cuban missile crisis had been resolved via back channels, The secret had been carefully conducted between Washington and Moscow. these two examples shows that the Security Diplomacy had always been sensitive and confidential and requires back channel meetings.
On the other hand the trade diplomacy has frequently been involved many states and the process had been multilateral. particularly after the second World War after the establishment of the GATT and later WTO. The organization has been serves as multilateral level of trade diplomacy. The General Agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) had been responsible to regulation international level. Although the GATT had been confronted by sets of challenges. But since the 1948 the GATT had conducted many successful multilateral negotiations. It can be said that between trade and environment diplomacy there is not much difference. Concerning Environment the WTO policy makers has recently introduced extensive trade regulations in which Environmental requirements has been given priority. examples " dolphin by catch in tuna fishing. co-labelling,packaging and so-called 'Green Purchasing' laws. An area of particular concern has centred on tropical timber depletion and the corresponding introduction of certification requirements (e.g Forest Stewardship Council) for tropical timber in a number of countries" (Barston,143. 2006)
Despite many differences the three diplomacy are interrelated. In which most of security negotiations involves trade and environment. As often trade and environment generates disputes. Disputes over land and economic considerations would probably lead to high level of conflict
In order to exchange information of current affairs concerning security issues in which to enhance cooperation or to settle the crises many head of states themselves or by their respective advisers had been held successful secret meetings for example when Egypt was in Economic meltdown, the Egypt president had to reach an agreement with Israel in order to get economic aid from America. In return the Egypt would change its policy of propaganda attack of anti-Israel and also allow Israel to use the Suez Canal but without the Israel flag. At that time the negotiations had been held successfully but remained secret from public. And also the Cuban missile crisis had been resolved via back channels, The secret had been carefully conducted between Washington and Moscow. these two examples shows that the Security Diplomacy had always been sensitive and confidential and requires back channel meetings.
On the other hand the trade diplomacy has frequently been involved many states and the process had been multilateral. particularly after the second World War after the establishment of the GATT and later WTO. The organization has been serves as multilateral level of trade diplomacy. The General Agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) had been responsible to regulation international level. Although the GATT had been confronted by sets of challenges. But since the 1948 the GATT had conducted many successful multilateral negotiations. It can be said that between trade and environment diplomacy there is not much difference. Concerning Environment the WTO policy makers has recently introduced extensive trade regulations in which Environmental requirements has been given priority. examples " dolphin by catch in tuna fishing. co-labelling,packaging and so-called 'Green Purchasing' laws. An area of particular concern has centred on tropical timber depletion and the corresponding introduction of certification requirements (e.g Forest Stewardship Council) for tropical timber in a number of countries" (Barston,143. 2006)
Despite many differences the three diplomacy are interrelated. In which most of security negotiations involves trade and environment. As often trade and environment generates disputes. Disputes over land and economic considerations would probably lead to high level of conflict
Trade and environmental diplomacy: What are the key differences between security, trade and environmental diplomacy?
Both trade, security and environment are connected in different ways, and they sometimes do clash. For example, what seems like wise actions from a traders point of view is not necessarily good for the environment, and a wise move for the environment is not always in line with a state’s security interests. Out of the three, security diplomacy is the one that retains most of the characteristics of the Old Diplomacy. It concerns states’ security, which is a concept that is very much connected to the Realist school of International Relations, and involves a high degree of realpolitik. Security diplomacy is often done behind closed doors, and much of it is secret. This, many would argue, is both natural and necessary, as many of the issues dealt with are highly sensitive and states may out want other states to know what they are doing. Security diplomacy issues are also sometimes dealt with through back channels; sometimes only the heads of states know what is going on. However, as was the case at the outset of the First World War, secrecy is not always desirable, and ideally, the secret, Old Style Diplomacy should be combined with openness so that states know at least roughly what other states are doing.
It could also be argued to be natural that trade and environmental diplomacy are more since these questions are not as crucial to states’ survival, and also because these issues are closer to the general public and their concerns. As the capitalist system builds on trade and profit, it is also good for a state’s reputation to be seen to act on the behalf on those who have interests in trade and commerce.
However, trade diplomacy in particular is also seen by some as a means for the rich states to try to control poorer ones, and most people would agree that the western developed states are over-represented in the big trade for a such as the World Trade Organization. Unfortunately, the levels of consummation that many part of the world have reached today, leads to clashes between environment and trade, as the concept of sustainable development tries to combine the two.
It could also be argued to be natural that trade and environmental diplomacy are more since these questions are not as crucial to states’ survival, and also because these issues are closer to the general public and their concerns. As the capitalist system builds on trade and profit, it is also good for a state’s reputation to be seen to act on the behalf on those who have interests in trade and commerce.
However, trade diplomacy in particular is also seen by some as a means for the rich states to try to control poorer ones, and most people would agree that the western developed states are over-represented in the big trade for a such as the World Trade Organization. Unfortunately, the levels of consummation that many part of the world have reached today, leads to clashes between environment and trade, as the concept of sustainable development tries to combine the two.
What are the key differences between security, trade and environmental diplomacy?
What are the key difference between security, trade and environmental diplomacy?
SECURITY DIPLOMACY: - Governments/
TRADE- mno’s
ENVIORMENTAL – ngo’s
Security diplomacy compared to trade and environmental diplomacy in many cases is regarded to be the most important form of diplomacy of all three. Although they are all regarded as diplomacy and have something different to bring to diplomacy and the international system. Security diplomacy seems to be the most significant of the them all, security diplomacy mainly focuses on the old terms of diplomacy e.g. primary actors moreover security diplomacy concentrates on foreign policy, and treats to the state or to international peace, and here are some examples: international terrorism, weapons, regional conflicts, civil war etc. Also Security diplomacy is more secretive, nearly all meetings which employ security diplomacy simply happen between two parties and do not involve public or the media, for instance the meeting between former president Richard Nixon and Chinese leader Zhou En Lai in 1972 regarding new relations between the U.S and China . Although many may criticise security diplomacy due to the fact that this type of diplomacy is not open or transparent and does not allow other groups such as Ngo’s or the public to have any type of influence in the decision making of any policy or agreements.
While security diplomacy is considered as being secretive and mainly concentrates on bilateral meetings, Trade diplomacy seems to be the opposite, although trade diplomacy involves states, trade diplomacy seems to be more open and allows multi-lateral talks to be held with states and other entities for instance, World Trade Organization and World Bank. Trade diplomacy in the International arena develops open dialogue among states and promotes good relations between two or more groups. Others consider trade diplomacy as an instrument used by the dominant powers to suppress and lock developing nations into agreeing and changing their foreign policy to suit them and their needs. For Example the IMF and their structure adjustment policies SAPs which were placed on many developing nations during the 1980 and 1990’s. Furthermore sanctions used in trade diplomacy against states regarding their behaviour, sanctions on trade may be placed causing serious economic problems for the country, which could result in the country changing their behaviour and policy, this type of diplomacy usually occurs when multi-lateral talks or negations fail to result in an agreement.
Environmental diplomacy is considered a to be a new type of diplomacy, due to the fact that this issue has become such a hot topic to discuss in international relations. NGO’s mainly focuses on this form of diplomacy although many theorists or even states leader may not consider the environment important it has became one of the most published topics, Due to the fact that the average citizen can become involved in environmental diplomacy The Rio summit in Brazil in 1992 changed many perspectives and encouraged governments to find alternatives to fossil fuel and to encourage movements to sign the climate change agreement. 14 years later we saw 108 agreeing to the kyoto protocol signing.
Although security diplomacy is seen as important that may shift due to the changes that the international community may face in the future regarding natural resources etc...
SECURITY DIPLOMACY: - Governments/
TRADE- mno’s
ENVIORMENTAL – ngo’s
Security diplomacy compared to trade and environmental diplomacy in many cases is regarded to be the most important form of diplomacy of all three. Although they are all regarded as diplomacy and have something different to bring to diplomacy and the international system. Security diplomacy seems to be the most significant of the them all, security diplomacy mainly focuses on the old terms of diplomacy e.g. primary actors moreover security diplomacy concentrates on foreign policy, and treats to the state or to international peace, and here are some examples: international terrorism, weapons, regional conflicts, civil war etc. Also Security diplomacy is more secretive, nearly all meetings which employ security diplomacy simply happen between two parties and do not involve public or the media, for instance the meeting between former president Richard Nixon and Chinese leader Zhou En Lai in 1972 regarding new relations between the U.S and China . Although many may criticise security diplomacy due to the fact that this type of diplomacy is not open or transparent and does not allow other groups such as Ngo’s or the public to have any type of influence in the decision making of any policy or agreements.
While security diplomacy is considered as being secretive and mainly concentrates on bilateral meetings, Trade diplomacy seems to be the opposite, although trade diplomacy involves states, trade diplomacy seems to be more open and allows multi-lateral talks to be held with states and other entities for instance, World Trade Organization and World Bank. Trade diplomacy in the International arena develops open dialogue among states and promotes good relations between two or more groups. Others consider trade diplomacy as an instrument used by the dominant powers to suppress and lock developing nations into agreeing and changing their foreign policy to suit them and their needs. For Example the IMF and their structure adjustment policies SAPs which were placed on many developing nations during the 1980 and 1990’s. Furthermore sanctions used in trade diplomacy against states regarding their behaviour, sanctions on trade may be placed causing serious economic problems for the country, which could result in the country changing their behaviour and policy, this type of diplomacy usually occurs when multi-lateral talks or negations fail to result in an agreement.
Environmental diplomacy is considered a to be a new type of diplomacy, due to the fact that this issue has become such a hot topic to discuss in international relations. NGO’s mainly focuses on this form of diplomacy although many theorists or even states leader may not consider the environment important it has became one of the most published topics, Due to the fact that the average citizen can become involved in environmental diplomacy The Rio summit in Brazil in 1992 changed many perspectives and encouraged governments to find alternatives to fossil fuel and to encourage movements to sign the climate change agreement. 14 years later we saw 108 agreeing to the kyoto protocol signing.
Although security diplomacy is seen as important that may shift due to the changes that the international community may face in the future regarding natural resources etc...
Thursday 23 April 2009
The three areas of diplomacy , security , trade and environment are all every states concern and even though they are in some way connected to each other they operate differently. Generally , security can be thought of in terms of stability of a state and safety of its citizens , but in order to have that , if there are any concerns such as threat to a state the first response and action will be through negotiation, if that's possible, using soft power , mainly hesitate using hard power for public safety .
Security diplomacy is arguably one element of diplomacy that has maintained the discreetness and privacy, that being the case, it mainly takes place bilaterally and its closest to what is so called the 'old diplomacy' , and that shows how it is still effective and useful. The negotiation happening without the media and public eye is for the national interest and the safety of its citizens. As history has proved , there are examples of state leaders using back-channels to come into agreement to prevent the use of hard power.
Trade is an important factor to diplomacy and it has undergone some changes , first of all an increase in the coverage of trade policy to include new issues by bringing new policy area such as (investment , consumer protection ,food safety etc) with an increase in the number of actors or interests concerned with trade policy. As a result the trade policy makers must now deal with a wide range of different actors and it has become more complex. Developments since the conclusion of Uruguay Round of trade negotiations suggest a mixed picture with regard to the ability of policy makers to cope with new challenges. The Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations were successfully launched in 2001, despite the start of a new multilateral round , however regional and bilateral has continued with WTO member actively engaging in negotiating trade agreements.
Environmental diplomacy can be broken into two categories , national resources and pollution . In each case the main problem is that political boundaries rarely reflect biological boundaries, so that as national economies consume resources and produce pollution , they spread environmental problems far beyond their national boundaries. Unites States has been one of the leading nations in environmental diplomacy , but as global discussions produced treaties that were unacceptable from US part , there was a shift from away from bilateral to multilateral and open to every nation. That shift has been a logical reaction to an increasing international awareness that some of the biggest threats to human society derive from global environmental problems. In addition , the increase in scientific knowledge and the awareness of public and faith in science were crucial elements in dealing with environmental problems.
Finally the NGOs have a done a fantastic job when it comes to environmental problems and always finding a way to cope with it.
Security diplomacy is arguably one element of diplomacy that has maintained the discreetness and privacy, that being the case, it mainly takes place bilaterally and its closest to what is so called the 'old diplomacy' , and that shows how it is still effective and useful. The negotiation happening without the media and public eye is for the national interest and the safety of its citizens. As history has proved , there are examples of state leaders using back-channels to come into agreement to prevent the use of hard power.
Trade is an important factor to diplomacy and it has undergone some changes , first of all an increase in the coverage of trade policy to include new issues by bringing new policy area such as (investment , consumer protection ,food safety etc) with an increase in the number of actors or interests concerned with trade policy. As a result the trade policy makers must now deal with a wide range of different actors and it has become more complex. Developments since the conclusion of Uruguay Round of trade negotiations suggest a mixed picture with regard to the ability of policy makers to cope with new challenges. The Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations were successfully launched in 2001, despite the start of a new multilateral round , however regional and bilateral has continued with WTO member actively engaging in negotiating trade agreements.
Environmental diplomacy can be broken into two categories , national resources and pollution . In each case the main problem is that political boundaries rarely reflect biological boundaries, so that as national economies consume resources and produce pollution , they spread environmental problems far beyond their national boundaries. Unites States has been one of the leading nations in environmental diplomacy , but as global discussions produced treaties that were unacceptable from US part , there was a shift from away from bilateral to multilateral and open to every nation. That shift has been a logical reaction to an increasing international awareness that some of the biggest threats to human society derive from global environmental problems. In addition , the increase in scientific knowledge and the awareness of public and faith in science were crucial elements in dealing with environmental problems.
Finally the NGOs have a done a fantastic job when it comes to environmental problems and always finding a way to cope with it.
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.
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.
Does Dolphin Friendly Tuna mean that the Dolphins were Friends with the Tuna before the Tuna got killed?
The U.S. constantly fights for its security, negotiates for trade... the environment? That's something they're gonna find out about when Saudi Arabia runs out of oil and they end up buying it off the Russians (at extortionate prices)
Or so it seems.
As much as we would like to deny the current hegemonic statues of the United States of America, it seems to not only exist, but is endorsed by others. Recent proof of this could be seen in London at the G20 summit. The British national newspapers on the 1st of April were plastered with president Obama's face and a heading saying that Brown should be given credit for all the preparations that he had organized ahead of the summit. Bet no one thought of saying thanks to Brown before that. I'd lay odds that if Bush Jr. had said it, we'd all be spitting feathers and calling him a condescending, patronizing little *@£$+^!. However, that is a discussion for another day.
The reason I am pointing out (repressed and denied) American hegemony is because I would like to illustrate, with this particular nation state, a possible approach to the 3 different aspects of diplomacy that we have been asked to analyze this week: trade, security and the environment.
To begin with security, we know that the US has legitimate security concerns. It fears for its energy security, and is playing its never-ending strategy game of the 'war against terror' which under the Bush administration, and with Guantanamo Bay was looking more and more like the 'war against Islam'. (Thankfully Obama's sorted that out - see what I mean about hegemony?)
So, establishing contacts for them is vital. Intelligence gathering (of the kind that the public probably doesn't find out about, like the extent of Iran's nuclear development programme) is no doubt extremely important for them. Having allies - above all - is the absolute imperative.
The post-Cold War period has shown us that other factors are increasingly considered as legitimate security concerns(Riordan). The most obvious being non-state actors as a threat (particularly after 9/11) and the global economic downturn. The G20 endorses, therefore, the notion that security is no longer an issue in terms of state integration (or disintegration in the case of civil wars) but also in non-state centric terms. And the US has fought for this, long and hard.
Now on trade. Diplomatic trade relations are useful for a number of reasons, one of them being that they could set out a framework or raise a platform on which to discuss other topics. Trade has been one of the longest standing forms of interaction between different nation states. Cross continental trade routes, such as the Silk Road were being used prior to 100 BC.
With the US having almost 17% of the voting weight in the IMF, and all the money it has invested in the IMF, WTO and other such organizations it is no surprise that . According to Barston, trade policies and foreign policies must be combined effectively to mutually support each other. The GATT and its system of codes (such as government procurement, trade in civil aircraft etc..) was used by the US to increase trade with those countries that adhered to the codes that they considered most important. Although it has been identified that trade disputes have also been on the rise with increased globalization. Here we see proof too that the Americans worry about establishing good trade relations (its trade relations with Japan aside). Especially when it comes to oil (or would they have bothered to intervene in the First Gulf War if they had not thought that Sadam would have eventually reached Saudi oil reserves?)
However, green is not a colour that seems to appeal to the US. With their reluctance to sign the Climate Convention (Kyoto Protocol) and their few token moves towards helping the environment (including fishing for dolphin-friendly tuna), they don't seem too worried about the effects of global warming, or ozone depletion, or the massive spread of greenhouse gases. The effects of the US (being one of the major greenhouse gas emitters) 'ignoring' or 'sidestepping' environmental issues (and remember, we've established it as a hegemony) has proved to be quite detrimental on an international level, as was demonstrated (again) by the G20 summit; the agenda consisted of three things:
the financial crisis (and possible solutions)
the financial crisis (and possible solutions)
and the financial crisis (and possible solutions).
Granted, it was and still is a major priority, but surely not the only thing to talk about? Couldn't they have made a tiny statement on the environment? (even though they admitted to deferring agreements on the environment until the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December this year). Sustainable development even?
With the US the environment seems to be an element of soft power that is used against them to place pressure on the fact that they have not cooperated as other developed countries, for example those in the EU, have.
To answer the question posed then, on what the key differences are between the three types of diplomacy, i would say that one of the main differences is evident in the priority that different states give to the different aspects. The US is not under an immediate threat of flooding in lowland areas due to global warming (not in a major way), and would probably be able to find new cooperating partners for trade should any of their current ones fail them. Security is their biggest issue, both at home and abroad. If we compare this to say, Bangladesh, then for them environmental concerns will be more relevant because they are at risk of losing a substantial amount of lowland due to flooding.
The manner in which different countries choose to pursue certain policies is also important. While trade wars exist, it is hard to see the use of hard power being used by any country in order to secure trade with another country. Having said that, speculation about the lengths that America is ready to go to in order to secure oil is still a question (although it was more of a question during the Bush Jr. administration than it is now). Similarly, the use of military power to defend the environment or environmental causes is also unlikely to be a cause for conflict or war.
As with many aspects of diplomacy, security, the environment and trade are all important relative to the circumstances that they apply to.
Security, trade and environmental diplomacy
The historical meaning of security for states were to ensure the well being of their people i.e jobs food, and the protection of territory. However,the rise of globalisation, since the beginning of the twenteith century has brought a whole new challenge to the meaning of security. Large scale industralisation, rise of population and migration means security, trade and environmental issues have become intertwined. We no longer live in a secluded world- the actions of individuals as well as countries thousands of miles apart can and does affect us all. mulitlateral diplomacy which involves governments, interest groups, NGOs can have important role in the proposal and decision making proccess. Security, trade and environmental issues may be diffrent on the surface but what they have in common is that they are inter-linked therefore co-operation at all level is the sort of diplomacy needed.
Amid Security, Trade and Environmental Diplomacy
Security, trade and environmental diplomacy are every states main concern. Security issues are everyone’s concern in this day and age. It is a complex portfolio in the relation between nation states. Central to international relations is the issue of security which is the notion of collective security whereby each state in the international system accepted that the security of one is the concern of the others and agreed to join forces in a collective response to aggression.
It must be noted that onboard the notion of security comes: unemployment, poverty, inequalities and environmental degradation. However, since the events of 9/11 it appears as though states are more preoccupied with terrorism than any other security threats mentioned. Indeed, if world politics and diplomacy today is characterised by the global war on terror alone then world leaders are missing the point and the cause of the problem with security. Although the attack of 9/11 was as many would argue to some extent religiously motivated but there are reasons to believe that poverty can trigger civil war, violence and finally bring a state and the world as a whole in a stand steal as did 9/11. Many would argue that foreign policy should start with a reasonable and realistic analysis of the world and that a failure to do so will constitute a misunderstanding of the real crisis facing the world.
The modern world trade is governed by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) which is the Group seven (G7), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), The United Nations, The world Bank Group (WB), and the World trade Organisation. These major organisations have major disagreements in relation to the notion of fair trade and cannot easily agree on the issues of environmental agenda whereas the diplomacy carried out in this area constitutes wealth distribution and resources. In short, the existing negotiation in trade and the environmental diplomacy are not directly based on the notion of normative approach which is defined by Margot and Groom as the questions of justice, rights, duties and obligation. That of course should govern world affairs but national interests remain the dominant diplomacy of all states.
The issues of trade is integral to economics which is as defined the production, exchange and consumption of resources at the same time it is equally integral to politics, helping to determine where power lies and how it is exercised. Arrangements in relation to environmental diplomacy which started to emerge in the twentieth century as a major international concern and activity is increasingly taking grid of talks and small progress on tackling environmental issue is recorded world wide by the media.
It must be noted that onboard the notion of security comes: unemployment, poverty, inequalities and environmental degradation. However, since the events of 9/11 it appears as though states are more preoccupied with terrorism than any other security threats mentioned. Indeed, if world politics and diplomacy today is characterised by the global war on terror alone then world leaders are missing the point and the cause of the problem with security. Although the attack of 9/11 was as many would argue to some extent religiously motivated but there are reasons to believe that poverty can trigger civil war, violence and finally bring a state and the world as a whole in a stand steal as did 9/11. Many would argue that foreign policy should start with a reasonable and realistic analysis of the world and that a failure to do so will constitute a misunderstanding of the real crisis facing the world.
The modern world trade is governed by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) which is the Group seven (G7), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), The Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), The United Nations, The world Bank Group (WB), and the World trade Organisation. These major organisations have major disagreements in relation to the notion of fair trade and cannot easily agree on the issues of environmental agenda whereas the diplomacy carried out in this area constitutes wealth distribution and resources. In short, the existing negotiation in trade and the environmental diplomacy are not directly based on the notion of normative approach which is defined by Margot and Groom as the questions of justice, rights, duties and obligation. That of course should govern world affairs but national interests remain the dominant diplomacy of all states.
The issues of trade is integral to economics which is as defined the production, exchange and consumption of resources at the same time it is equally integral to politics, helping to determine where power lies and how it is exercised. Arrangements in relation to environmental diplomacy which started to emerge in the twentieth century as a major international concern and activity is increasingly taking grid of talks and small progress on tackling environmental issue is recorded world wide by the media.
Wednesday 22 April 2009
Trade and environmental diplomacy
Considering differences between these areas of diplomacy regarding structure, the emphasis on security diplomacy still sees states as the main actors, as represented for example in the security council of the UN (although from a public diplomacy point of view, it can be seen that embassies today have much more of an emphasis on communications with non-state actors, rather than just ministerial networking and communicating). But opposed to this, the structures of trade diplomacy and environmental diplomacy have become much more inclusive in their decision making processes.
This point could be linked to the fact that trade diplomacy is implemented through bargaining at a domestic level and then at the international level afterwards.
At the Rio Conference In 1992 on sustainable development, about 1500 NGOs were represented. Also at the Johannesburg 2002 summit, where civil society organizations and business representatives were even more significant than heads of state. From this, it can be seen that in trade and environmental diplomacy, states are less autonomous within the negotiation process than in security diplomacy.
Regarding the process of diplomacy, again security diplomacy differs from environmental and trade diplomacy in that it can be much more secretive than these other two forms. Although slightly before the time of the implementation of the new diplomacy, secrecy was used by Roosevelt regarding communications with Prussia during the Venezuela crisis of 1902-1903, where the important breakthroughs were done through backchannels. This example can be used to show how the old diplomacy is still relevant today, as for example backchannels were also an important part of the process during the beginning of rapprochement with China.
Trade diplomacy can relate to foreign policy, for example the dispute between the EC and the US over protectionism by the EC’s Common Agricultural Policy. Whereas it could be argued environmental diplomacy does not depend as much on foreign policy. For example, although the US did not ratify the Kyoto protocol, some states such as California and Boston introduced their own environmental policies.
Environmental diplomacy is limited by the processes of international politics, and agreements on policies will only be made where heads of state approve of them. This is partly due to the nature of international law, and the fact that the environment is still often seen as being an optional issue. Another problem which affects this is the fact that it is difficult to measure environmental processes such as global warming accurately due to the idea of natural processes. Again, due to how environmental processes may be seen, it can take a very long time for treaties to be ratified. The effects of trade and security crises can be more easily seen.
To sum up, there are many differences between these areas of diplomacy, which include amongst others, the ideas of openness and also of inclusion.
This point could be linked to the fact that trade diplomacy is implemented through bargaining at a domestic level and then at the international level afterwards.
At the Rio Conference In 1992 on sustainable development, about 1500 NGOs were represented. Also at the Johannesburg 2002 summit, where civil society organizations and business representatives were even more significant than heads of state. From this, it can be seen that in trade and environmental diplomacy, states are less autonomous within the negotiation process than in security diplomacy.
Regarding the process of diplomacy, again security diplomacy differs from environmental and trade diplomacy in that it can be much more secretive than these other two forms. Although slightly before the time of the implementation of the new diplomacy, secrecy was used by Roosevelt regarding communications with Prussia during the Venezuela crisis of 1902-1903, where the important breakthroughs were done through backchannels. This example can be used to show how the old diplomacy is still relevant today, as for example backchannels were also an important part of the process during the beginning of rapprochement with China.
Trade diplomacy can relate to foreign policy, for example the dispute between the EC and the US over protectionism by the EC’s Common Agricultural Policy. Whereas it could be argued environmental diplomacy does not depend as much on foreign policy. For example, although the US did not ratify the Kyoto protocol, some states such as California and Boston introduced their own environmental policies.
Environmental diplomacy is limited by the processes of international politics, and agreements on policies will only be made where heads of state approve of them. This is partly due to the nature of international law, and the fact that the environment is still often seen as being an optional issue. Another problem which affects this is the fact that it is difficult to measure environmental processes such as global warming accurately due to the idea of natural processes. Again, due to how environmental processes may be seen, it can take a very long time for treaties to be ratified. The effects of trade and security crises can be more easily seen.
To sum up, there are many differences between these areas of diplomacy, which include amongst others, the ideas of openness and also of inclusion.
Security, Trade and Environmental diplomacy and the role of multilateralism
Although the three are imminently related in this interconnected world we live in , the differences lay in the extend to which external factors such as NGO’s , non-state actors or others have the ability to influence the intergovernmental negotiations. Security diplomacy seems to always be exclusively reserved to governments, this argument although partially correct omits the fact that today’s state’s security cannot be achieved without cooperation on multiple levels including consultative one. Globalization has led to interdependence and the creation of a chain reaction where each element from politics to economy or environment is interlinked to the other. If we reformulate our question we can ask ourselves : to what extent multilateralism is present and effective in the security, trade and environmental diplomacy? It is obvious that transparency cannot be demanded when security is at stake for a simple reason, state’s vulnerability can be exposed, although cooperation is required, selectiveness of such becomes a priority. Trade diplomacy has evolved through time as well, the role regionalism plays in the elaboration of international trade regulations is another major development. States are therefore conducting negotiations on multiple levels from national to international. The presence of NGO’s, multinational companies and extra-governmental organizations in the international system have encumbered even further the ability to achieve consensus in negotiations. The environmental resurrection that the world is trying to achieve today (Saving our planet) is another wake up call to humans that only trough cooperation on multiple levels real results can be achieved. This of course is where NGO’S and other non state actors have the ability to influence outcomes considerably with their relevant expertise. Multilateralism is very much at the heart of environmental diplomacy. Although differences can be traced between security, trade and environmental diplomacy the core issue is to what extent multilateralism is involved. We also begin to see the importance the preservation of the environment is playing today and how it affects the political and economical agenda in international affairs, therefore the deepening of this interdependence will overcome furthermore the differences that exist between security ,trade and environmental diplomacy.
Although the three are imminently related in this interconnected world we live in , the differences lay in the extend to which external factors such as NGO’s , non-state actors or others have the ability to influence the intergovernmental negotiations. Security diplomacy seems to always be exclusively reserved to governments, this argument although partially correct omits the fact that today’s state’s security cannot be achieved without cooperation on multiple levels including consultative one. Globalization has led to interdependence and the creation of a chain reaction where each element from politics to economy or environment is interlinked to the other. If we reformulate our question we can ask ourselves : to what extent multilateralism is present and effective in the security, trade and environmental diplomacy? It is obvious that transparency cannot be demanded when security is at stake for a simple reason, state’s vulnerability can be exposed, although cooperation is required, selectiveness of such becomes a priority. Trade diplomacy has evolved through time as well, the role regionalism plays in the elaboration of international trade regulations is another major development. States are therefore conducting negotiations on multiple levels from national to international. The presence of NGO’s, multinational companies and extra-governmental organizations in the international system have encumbered even further the ability to achieve consensus in negotiations. The environmental resurrection that the world is trying to achieve today (Saving our planet) is another wake up call to humans that only trough cooperation on multiple levels real results can be achieved. This of course is where NGO’S and other non state actors have the ability to influence outcomes considerably with their relevant expertise. Multilateralism is very much at the heart of environmental diplomacy. Although differences can be traced between security, trade and environmental diplomacy the core issue is to what extent multilateralism is involved. We also begin to see the importance the preservation of the environment is playing today and how it affects the political and economical agenda in international affairs, therefore the deepening of this interdependence will overcome furthermore the differences that exist between security ,trade and environmental diplomacy.
Security, trade and environmental diplomacy
Environmental diplomacy, having arrived at the centre stage of international attention much later than security and trade, has seen a much wider involvement of NGOs in the agenda formation and negotiation process. Environmental diplomacy, not unlike trade and security, deals with very complex issues, but there seems to be a much wider degree of recognition on the part of states and other institutions that NGOs have something to offer to environmental diplomacy. States, having to deal with a broad range of issues, and therefore do not have the capacity to build expert capacities in every field, have thus become dependent on NGOs and their knowledge, research and expertise in the field of the environment and climate change.
Whereas it is hard to evaluate precisely the effect of NGOs on the outcome of environmental diplomacy, it can be argued that NGOs have played a role in changing the popular view of the environment. Large NGOs gain much of their influence through the use of technology and various forms of communications, and by their ability to get to the media to spread their message. Paul Wapner shows how, what he calls TEAGs; transnational environmental activist groups, through highlighting various environmental problems, contribute to changes in perception, behaviour and action towards the environment amongst people. He argues that TEAGs, by creating awareness of problems by staging spectacular and sometimes dangerous events, has helped foster what he calls ‘ecological sensibility’.
Environmental diplomacy seems to be the area where civil society has been allowed the greatest presence and most influence in decision makings compared to security and trade diplomacy. Although trade negotiations have seen an opening up towards the participation of civil society, it is business groups who have most influence. Security diplomacy, by contrast, remains a much more closed area of operation and where various unofficial channels of communication contribute to the secrecy of negotiations. Yet, there seems to be a growing call for change in the structure and culture of the practice of foreign ministries in order to be able to effectively deal with the changing security agenda. Riordan argues that, as the concept of security changes and broadens, there should be a move towards a more dialogue-based diplomacy and one that has a more open decision-making process, which will increase the ability of diplomats to make the right decisions and be more flexible and able to respond to various problems.
Whereas it is hard to evaluate precisely the effect of NGOs on the outcome of environmental diplomacy, it can be argued that NGOs have played a role in changing the popular view of the environment. Large NGOs gain much of their influence through the use of technology and various forms of communications, and by their ability to get to the media to spread their message. Paul Wapner shows how, what he calls TEAGs; transnational environmental activist groups, through highlighting various environmental problems, contribute to changes in perception, behaviour and action towards the environment amongst people. He argues that TEAGs, by creating awareness of problems by staging spectacular and sometimes dangerous events, has helped foster what he calls ‘ecological sensibility’.
Environmental diplomacy seems to be the area where civil society has been allowed the greatest presence and most influence in decision makings compared to security and trade diplomacy. Although trade negotiations have seen an opening up towards the participation of civil society, it is business groups who have most influence. Security diplomacy, by contrast, remains a much more closed area of operation and where various unofficial channels of communication contribute to the secrecy of negotiations. Yet, there seems to be a growing call for change in the structure and culture of the practice of foreign ministries in order to be able to effectively deal with the changing security agenda. Riordan argues that, as the concept of security changes and broadens, there should be a move towards a more dialogue-based diplomacy and one that has a more open decision-making process, which will increase the ability of diplomats to make the right decisions and be more flexible and able to respond to various problems.
key difference between security,trade and environment diplomacy.
In the new phenomenon of new diplomacy security diplomacy still remained exclusive and secretive within states. This area still mostly reflects the old diplomacy where trade and environmental diplomacy is more open and flexible in terms of negotiations either bilaterally or multilaterally. Security diplomacy is more sophisticated and involves the state interest and allows the back channels as a media to resolve issues. But trade and environment diplomacy is more visible and less complex. Nonetheless trade diplomacy is a major issue which requires similar attention like security diplomacy. Sometimes the trade is instrument of achieving security objectives. On the other hand environmental diplomacy is still a new issue that seeking diplomatic attention. Various summits on environment and trade issues are effective compare to the summits that focus on security issues because of the complexity and intensity of the security matters. The raising non state actors that participating in the international relations mostly concentrated on the environment and trade issues. A key difference between the security diplomacy and environmental is that the big powers and greater nations influence is more on the security issues and they are the main driving force on the security diplomacy but in environment issues the suffering countries and even the smaller nations raising their voice easily and enthusiastic about achieving goals. The Security Council in UN is the example how security issues are mainly being driven by the major powers. Security issues are also still being addressed bilaterally to achieve goals or resolve problems. Although there are conferences and multilateral approaches are also vital in security diplomacy. But in trade and environmental diplomacy is a core element of new diplomacy and it is mainly being executed by multilateral diplomacy.
Key differences between security, trade and environmental diplomacy
Security, trade and environmental diplomacy are quite different areas of diplomacy which can be overlapping especially environmental and trade diplomacy.
Security diplomacy is mostly carried out in secret. It has a long tradition in history and is part of the ‘old diplomacy’. The advantages are that parties can negotiate more widely without receiving pressure from the media and/or the public. As an example of the success of secret diplomacy is the Northern Ireland conflict. Where negotiation in the public would have had a negative impact of the solution of the conflict but without negotiations the conflict could not have been solved. Secret diplomacy is carried out within an exclusive circle, mostly made up of politicians and diplomats and which involves various tasks like negotiation, propaganda, spreading, soft power, etc. Secret diplomacy lacks legitimacy and openness. In some cases NGOs are involved, for example the Mozambican crisis in 1992 by the community of Sant’Egidio. This occurs in very few cases and its called Track II diplomacy. NGO’s play a minor role in security diplomacy. In the majority of the cases security diplomacy is carried out through secret diplomacy and back channel diplomacy.
Trade diplomacy has gone through a transition. It is concerned with the world economy, where the aim is to bring wealth, development and stability into the system. Trade diplomacy was relatively narrowly defined. Most comparisons are made with the period after the establishment of GATT in 1948. It consisted primarily of border measures. In trade diplomacy countries are negotiating on a multinational, bilateral and regional level. Through the process of globalization, the number of actors or interests increased, as a consequence that trade policy makers must deal now with a wider range of domestic actors, thus has lead to a more complex and more transparent trade diplomacy. Actors in trade diplomacy are states, MNCs, NGOs and bodies like the EU and is in contrast to secret diplomacy, more open and in the public interest, for example the G20. Because of these, trade diplomacy went through a process of deepening and widening. It shifted from national treatment to policy harmonization, which leads to the problem that trade diplomats have less scope to reject calls from sector interests for bilateral negotiations and/or dispute settlement cases to be initiated in, for example, the WTO. Trade diplomacy nowadays has more overlapping with environment diplomacy.
Environmental diplomacy is fairly new in contrast to security and trade diplomacy. Still not every country recognize that there are serious issues concerning the environment in future issues like global warming. The problem here is that environmental diplomacy refers to something what will happen in the future and therefore is not exactly predictable. And even scientists do not agree to which degree the global warming will effect the planet. In environmental diplomacy NGOs play a big role, because they have bigger resources and better knowledge as for example states or the UN. In environmental diplomacy states, MNC and NGOs play a role. Because environmental diplomacy has mostly negative effects on trade, especially on the national interest basis, environmental diplomacy often fails. It seems that the true way for change is not present and therefore extremely complicated when coming to an agreement. Environmental diplomacy will become a more important issue of security policies in the future. The problem of limited resources and the differences between the developed countries and the less developed countries are big future issues of environmental diplomacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
