The New Diplomacy

Blogging on the New Diplomacy in 2010: New Premises

2010-02-18T00:06:00.015Z

This blog constitutes my first attempt at using a group blog on a class-taught module. While it had a number of clear benefits in terms of developing students' writing and enabling them to comment on each other's work, there were some problems. Not least was the fact that on a blog with 50 students all posting their entries at similar times on similar themes, the blog became repetitive and overloaded. To address this problem, I have set up seven groups blogs of ten or so students each for the current semester. Please follow and comment on their work on the following blogs:

http://newdiplomacy2010a.blogspot.com/
http://newdiplomacy2010b.blogspot.com/
http://newdiplomacy2010c.blogspot.com/
http://newdiplomacy2010d.blogspot.com/
http://newdiplomacy2010e.blogspot.com/
http://newdiplomacy2010f.blogspot.com/
http://newdiplomacy2010g.blogspot.com/

How can means used in 'public diplomacy' facilitate this incident?

2010-01-31T18:25:00.016Z

Although it has been a while since we completed the 'New Diplomacy' module with Steven, I just wanted to share something which has been in the news for quite some time now.

Back in October (23rd) last year, a British couple Rachel and Paul Chandler were kidnapped by Somali pirates whilst sailing along the Indian Ocean on their yacht. Three months on, and the British couple remain in pirate's hand. David Miliband, Foreign Secretary, has made clear that the British government will not get involved in any 'ransom payment' in order to secure the release of Mr and Mrs Chandler. Miliband further deliberates that the British government has never been attracted to the idea of making 'concessions' to 'hostage-takers', rendering such incident plus the request to 'oblige' (by paying the demanded 'random') is not in Britain's interests.

This kind of response reminds me of Peter R. Neumann's claim when he said that 'democracies must never give in to violence, and terrorists must never be rewarded for using it. Negotiations give legitimacy to terrorists and their methods and undermine actors who have pursued political change through peaceful means. Talks can destabilize the negotiating governments' political systems, and undercut international efforts to outlaw terrorism' (Neumann, R. P (2007), 'Negotiating With Terrorists', Foreign Affairs on-line).

Returning to the Somali pirates case, would Britain's reaction in a way be representing its 'commitment' and 'compliance' with internationally accepted measurements in countering piracy?

British High Commissioner, Rob Macaire, based in Kenya, informed the BBC (in the early aftermath of the incident) that: '...our main concern is to make them understand that what they are doing is entirely unjustified and that they should release the Chandlers immediately and unconditionally'.

From a 'new diplomacy' point of view, British government response to the £4.3 million random demanded by the pirates resembles a form of 'hard power'. 'Hard power' in this context involves the British government and its foreign affairs officials to engage in (via 'media' channels) 'disciplining' the 'wrong-doers (pirates), and reaffirm the international protocol against such unjust activities. Despite the application of 'hard power', Whitehall officials and the government have an expert 'hostage negotiator' on stand-by as the event unravel.

Could the Somali pirate's reluctance to release the Chandlers be due to the fact that a similar hijacking (on the 29th November, 2009) of a Greek supertanker 'Marcan Centaurus' (carrying a $156 million worth of oil/or equivalent to two million barrels of oil) by another pirate gang off the coast of Somalia...successfully received a $7 million ransom as they freed the Greek ship..

Similar outcomes also apply for the Saudi-owned 'Sirius Star' supertanker, it was hijacked in November 2008, and freed in January 2009, as the hijackers received a concession of $3 million in ransom.

"A very diplomatic blog: British ambassadors worldwide tell (nearly) all on the web"

2009-11-29T23:10:00.004Z

It seems only appropriate - if a little self-referential - that I should use this blog to highlight a very interesting piece in The Guardian on the growing use of Web 2.0 by British diplomats and ambassadors. For the full article click on the title above. It includes the reflections of Ambassador John Duncan, who has generously commented on some of the students' work on this blog.

International issues and controversies

2009-05-29T19:00:00.003+01:00

Hello everyone,

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

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

Best wishes,

Visit to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

2009-05-27T00:06:00.003+01:00

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

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

2009-05-13T00:25:00.007+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My understanding of diplomacy today

2009-05-01T22:15:00.002+01:00

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

2009-05-01T22:15:00.001+01:00

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

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

2009-05-01T22:14:00.000+01:00

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

Reflections on understanding diplomacy

2009-05-01T18:26:00.001+01:00

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

MY UNDERSTANDING OF DIPLOMACY TODAY

2009-05-01T17:29:00.000+01:00

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

My Understanding Of Dipomacy Today

2009-05-01T14:35:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

2009-05-01T13:05:00.000+01:00

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

My understanding of diplomacy today

2009-05-01T06:50:00.002+01:00

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

Understanding Of Diplomacy Today

2009-05-01T03:09:00.015+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

My understanding of diplomacy

2009-05-01T01:27:00.002+01:00

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

My understanding of new diplomacy

2009-04-30T23:54:00.000+01:00

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.

my understanding of diplomacy- ehtashamul haque

2009-04-30T23:47:00.002+01:00

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

2009-04-30T23:45:00.002+01:00

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 understanding of diplomacy today

2009-04-30T23:44:00.000+01:00

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.

My Understanding of Diplomacy Today - by Ernest Andreyevich Reid

2009-04-30T23:39:00.000+01:00

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

2009-04-30T23:24:00.001+01:00

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.

my understanding of diplomacy today

2009-04-30T23:20:00.001+01:00

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 understanding of diplomacy today

2009-04-30T22:51:00.002+01:00

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 understanding of diplomacy today

2009-04-30T21:44:00.002+01:00

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:

2009-04-30T19:43:00.000+01:00

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.

2009-04-30T18:34:00.000+01:00

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.

My understanding of new-diplomacy

2009-04-30T18:28:00.001+01:00

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

2009-04-30T18:05:00.001+01:00

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.

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

2009-04-30T16:45:00.000+01:00

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.

2009-04-30T15:04:00.001+01:00

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 diplomacy today:

2009-04-30T02:31:00.000+01:00

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.

my understanding of diplomacy today?

2009-04-30T02:21:00.000+01:00

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.

2009-04-30T01:09:00.002+01:00

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.

My understanding of diplomacy

2009-04-29T23:41:00.000+01:00

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.

My Understanding of Diplomacy

2009-04-29T23:32:00.002+01:00

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

2009-04-29T22:43:00.009+01:00

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

2009-04-29T22:18:00.002+01:00

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.

My understanding of diplomacy today?

2009-04-28T17:13:00.002+01:00

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

2009-04-28T15:33:00.000+01:00

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.

My understanding of diplomacy today

2009-04-27T14:45:00.002+01:00

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.

My understanding of diplomacy today

2009-04-26T12:54:00.001+01:00

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

2009-04-26T03:28:00.000+01:00

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

2009-04-25T14:54:00.008+01:00

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).

Trade and Environment Diplomacy

2009-04-24T20:58:00.002+01:00

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

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

2009-04-24T12:18:00.001+01:00

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.

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

2009-04-24T00:14:00.000+01:00

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...

2009-04-23T22:32:00.002+01:00

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.

What are the key differences between security, trade and environmental diplomacy? by Ernest Andreyevich Reid

2009-04-23T20:14:00.001+01:00

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.

Does Dolphin Friendly Tuna mean that the Dolphins were Friends with the Tuna before the Tuna got killed?

2009-04-23T04:56:00.002+01:00

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)

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

2009-04-23T04:34:00.002+01:00

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

2009-04-23T00:12:00.002+01:00

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.

Trade and environmental diplomacy

2009-04-22T23:57:00.000+01:00

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.

2009-04-22T23:56:00.000+01:00

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.

Security, trade and environmental diplomacy

2009-04-22T23:53:00.001+01:00

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.

key difference between security,trade and environment diplomacy.

2009-04-22T23:40:00.000+01:00

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

2009-04-22T23:37:00.000+01:00

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.

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

2009-04-22T22:13:00.006+01:00

The term crisis diplomacy is use for diplomatic situations when military engagement is on edge and state security is at risk. As Martin White states “force and diplomacy is two sides of the same coin” also meaning that crisis diplomacy is backed by military force. In the Cuban missile crisis, however, it was also the military that had to make withdrawals, USSR from Cuba and US from Turkey. Like in most crisis diplomacy this case was bilateral and secretive ( especially the knowledge of US concessions became publicly known long after the crisis) are the two basic concepts of old diplomacy. Both sides also used back channels to try to make their case. Now in a less bipolar world, influence from international organizations like NATO and UN are more pronounced even in crisis situations. Ultimately it could depend on the root of the crisis; hypothetically a MNC or a NGO challenging state sovereignty could lead to crisis between host and parent state, and negotiations would possibly become multilateral(in the case of Al-Queda, if diplomatic negotiations have occurred they have occurred secretly).

States negotiating economical deals are said to engage in trade diplomacy. http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifThe goal for the state is to gain as much profit as possibly without endangering their international relationships, but also to further their relationships with the increased interaction trade lead to. A tool of diplomacy is trade sanctions, which could ultimately threaten economic stability and therefore also ability to host great military power. Public boycotting of a special MNC brand could effect a parents country's GDP quite much in a globalized world where external markets are so important, but as often in trade diplomacy a solution is found quickly. Trade diplomacy is often engage in multilaterally and often non-state actor are also involved. WTO is often used as a forum for trade negotiations, it is however and actor is self sometimes seeming to favour western countries in negotiations. Expansion of markets and promoting of consumption is according to green thinking the opposite of environmental sustainability.

The declining world environment will eventually affects us all, failing crops has an effect both on national economies and could ultimately also lead to mass migration which would have effects on state security. The environmental diplomacy has mostly been made by NGO's promoting radical action usually with MNC as there opposition. NGO's mostly tries to influence public opinion with awareness campaigns to pressure governments to take action. MNC could secretly financially support political campaigns for presidential candidates that would keep conservative regulations in support of MNC competitive advantages and that would not be keen on engaging in environmental negotiations (aka. Bush). MNC promoting environmental friendly technological solutions on the other hand would try to pressure governments to make environmental arguments banning older technologies, like the Montreal Protocol banning of products using CFC, which then would be both trade and environmental diplomacy at work. The creation of these environmental protocols are often made multilaterally in inclusive summit negotiations. As a cause of the many actors, there are many interests, half solutions and negotiations are very slow and it is hard to come to consistent implementations. The enforcement in the global arena is hard to find, but one idea is the Multilateral Fund (MLF) that is suppose to act as an carrot, especially for developing countries, if meeting targets.

The common ground for these three ways of diplomacy can be found in sustaining security. If the economy is healthy then a state is able to keep their military power. If the environment is healthy a state would ex. avoid failing crops effect on the economy, loss of food which could lead to mass migration and chaos creating major crisis. The key differences lies in the role and functions of non-state actors and civil society in these three kind of diplomacy. Also in the use of old or new diplomacy functions in obtaining security.

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

2009-04-22T21:25:00.000+01:00

Paradigms of diplomacy are subject to evolution under the stresses of a modernising and globalising world. Despite the environmental awakening state primacy remains a central aspect of summitry. The preservation of security and trade relationships overshadows and stunts any ground made in relation to developing lasting solutions to systemic problems on both green house gases and CO2 emissions. A central aspect of environmental summits has been the disparities in patterns of consumption between the developed and developing world.

This is perhaps where the paradigm of North and South has its roots. There exist high levels of trade exploitation or ‘eco-imperialism’ towards the South. Financial elements like the IMF and WB which serve to stimulate underdevelopment and perpetuate the exports of cheap raw materials which afford the North its high levels of consumption and deny the South the economies of scale to precipitate economic development. The prevalence of the environmental agenda has seen the inclusion of NGOs as advocacy and policy influential stakeholders. This is an unprecedented step towards the pluralism necessary to achieve a truly multipolar globalised and healthy world.

The engagement of NGOs in environmental debate is an excessively progressive step when, compared with the relative exclusion of the least developed countries from the WTO. Agendas of the WTO towards consolidation of national economic policy lack the appropriate consultation to overcome the systemic obstacles of poverty. Grass roots poverty organisations have the regional insight and capacity to influence trade practices which would be conducive to development. If we consider the role of India in achieving the right to produce patented drugs under licence in developing countries it remains debatable whether this initiative goes far enough. As the inclusion of millions of AID/HIV, malaria and tuberculosis victims into the formal mainstream economy can only be advantageous. Similarly the role of the development of public services far out weigh the gains to be made in ecological investment in the developing world, as inclusion first builds financial capacity but more pressingly provides the margin for shifting the process of development towards more environmentally friendly initiatives.

As with the case of security, beneficial relations of economic and ecological exchange are conducive to stability as the risk of migration, economic destabilization and environmental disasters are diminished. There is however a tendency to view trade and environmental concession as destabilising to developed countries as, these relationships of exploitative exchange are what provide us with our comparative advantage in the international arena.

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

2009-04-22T20:48:00.001+01:00

The different forms of diplomacy are practiced in a variety of ways, however in some areas the various types of diplomacy do overlap. Security diplomacy understandably is one element of diplomacy that has remained exclusive and secretive within states – often involving intelligence agencies and spying on other state. This element of diplomacy arguably remains the closest to the ‘old’ diplomacy. Activities are discreetly carried out, usually bilaterally, but occasionally multilaterally (for instance, allied groups such as NATO) and while it is known by other states that these activities are taking place – the details remain secretive in order to heighten the protection of the national interest and the safety of its citizens. The Cuban Missile Crisis is an ideal example of secretive diplomacy between state leaders using back channels in order to reach an agreement and prevent catastrophe.

Trade diplomacy operates in a very different manner – far more open and inclusive, it adopts a multilateral approach, it involves the participation of alternative transnational actors such as Multi National Corporations, international organisations such as the WTO and states. Bilateral trade diplomacy still exists between states although in a world of increasing interconnectedness, multilateral trade is becoming more common. As the diplomacy is not based around state security, it relies far more on negotiation and maximising the economic benefits for states and to ensure the free market continues and improves. The results of negotiations are quickly reached (by comparison to environmental diplomacy) and easier to implement.

Environmental diplomacy, again involves more transnational actors – states, MNCs, IGOs and NGOs. Conference diplomacy is used and so it is an open and inclusive process, but with a global issue like the environment, and with every actors wanting to pursue different interests, it is very difficult to reach solid decisions and even more difficult to implement them. In this respect environmental diplomacy is very open ended and the results are often not seen immediately. The Kyoto Protocol in 1997 is a good example of a measures proposed that are unlikely to be met before the treaty expires in 2012 – the protocol itself has proved to be nearly impossible to enforce. Due to this, it is questionable how much difference this has actually made to the environment and shows the slow moving process of environmental diplomacy. A major difference is that NGOs and IGOs play a more significant role in this form of diplomacy than other forms, as they are often the most knowledgeable, and are seen to have more legitimacy than states or MNCs. However, states remain the most significant still as they are the only actors able to create and sign treaties.

2009-04-22T19:54:00.001+01:00

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

Diplomacy in general has arguably proved to be a successful tool in international relations in recent times although some short falls have been inevitable.

Security diplomacy clearly exhibits the features of the old diplomacy as its dealings, operations and negotiations remain purely among states and conducted in a very secretive manner. The permanent member states in the Security Council of the UN are a typical example of how issues of security are really conducted in an exclusive style.
In addition questions regarding why the US and UK pioneered the Iraq War have not been properly addressed to satisfy the people they serve and on whose vote they rule. In attempts to avoid this pressure from the public, terms like; ‘national security’, ‘national interest’ is used and in the case of the UK, issues deemed to threaten national security are not made public until thirty years.

Trade diplomacy, has been dominantly bilateral in nature for a very long time. Although there have been a good number of interventions through the efforts of intergovernmental organisations, non governmental organisations and the like, the results of these pressures have not been commensurate to their inputs. It is evident the politics involved in trade as links between national interests and economic growth or development remain an undying feature in this arena.

Environmental diplomacy among these three types being discussed has arguably enjoyed a good number NGOs who have made an incredible representation on the international scene covering issues ranging from deforestation, pollution (land, air and water), protection of both plant and animal species near extinction, land mines and climate change. This form of diplomacy bears the pointers of the new kind of diplomacy: subject to public scrutiny. Green peace has been and still is one of the major promoter of the ‘green revolution’

In the future, if most countries stress the need ‘to save our world’ by co operating to cut carbon emissions, allow the operation of fair trade instead of free trade and encourage the representation of more countries on the ‘global south’ on security issues, then would the concept of the new diplomacy be considered as mature.

what are the key differences between security, trade and evironmental diplomacy

2009-04-22T19:23:00.000+01:00

These three issues are all very important in the international arena, playing a part in the growth of their State in prosperity and prestige.
Security is a major issue that focuses on the State and the self interests of that state, dealing with countries either bilaterally or multilaterally, mainly bilaterally, to heighten its own protection of its state and sanction others that they may see as threats or come to some agreement in order to enhance their security. The usual process for these discussions would be carried out in a discreet and private matter.

Trade however is a more open subject for discussion among the international arena, taking a multilateral approach as it is a topic that must be agreed on internationally for either free-trade or other alliances and tariffs to be decided upon. The World Trade Organisation is an example of this as it is an international organisation that governments can attend, that states know of their agenda so it is easy to acquire agreements and nothing is carried out in a secretive way, having said that though
When trade first came about they had to do it in a secretive way in order to achieve access to better trading ground and other routes into other countries.

Environmental Diplomacy is another example of multilateral diplomacy as they have to negotiate on an international level. Both Security and Trade are similar in a sense that the State is only interested in the protection of its state and the economic growth of its country but environmental diplomacy is not an issue that can be described as a self interest for a state it is more of a collective self interest for the world. Environmental diplomacy does not seek to enhance the state rather putting sanctions on it if it goes over a certain percentage of carbon emissions or greenhouse gases. Environmental diplomacy also has a majority of NGOs which security and trade do not have at their negotiations, although they may have some.

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

2009-04-22T19:19:00.001+01:00

The three aspects of diplomacy are all interrelated on different levels. The overarching aim is to obtain security. However, the road to security has changed as the notion of ‘security’ has broadened in recent years to include ‘human security’, and looking deeper into the root causes of conflicts and instability such as environmental issues, health, ethnicity, economical, and political aspects. The concept was first acknowledged in a report by the UNDP in 1994.
Security diplomacy is at the core of traditional ‘old’ diplomacy, and has to a high degree maintained the concept of secrecy in order to create leverage for concessions and bargaining without the pressure of the public eye. History has several examples of state leaders using back-channels and thus bypassed the official bureaucratic structures of decision making. More often than not security diplomacy is conducted on a bilateral basis. Security diplomacy remains at the centre of the discipline in order to avoid the use of hard power measures.
Trade diplomacy is interconnected with other aspects like security and development which has been seen in the recent Doha Round. Some argue in connection to the democratic peace thesis that trade reduced the risk of violent conflicts as it will bring peace, democracy and prosperity as well as being interlinked with other states making states having too much to lose if engaging in military actions. Trade diplomacy can be conducted both on a bilateral as well as on a multilateral basis through regimes like the WTO. However, the organisation have in recent years been accused of being undemocratic, unaccountable and lacking transparency as well as the agreements and internal structure are favouring the wealthy west on the expense of the resource-weak developing south and can thus cause the further development of under-development crating even bigger gaps between the two blocks. Finally, trade diplomacy remains influenced by strong business lobbies and like other diplomatic dimensions remains doubled-edged having to respond both to demands from the domestic as well as the international sphere in the quest of liberalising the markets.
Environmental diplomacy is a newcomer on the diplomatic stage. Environmental diplomacy remains interconnected with security diplomacy as issues such as deforestation, global warming, desertification, etc. may risk triggering mass migrations and generate civil instability with international ramifications. Environmental diplomacy remains on a multilateral level as international issues demand international solutions as unilateral and bilateral actions will not make a difference this have been the case with the Kyoto protocol and perhaps again with the upcoming COP15 in Copenhagen. NGOs remain very influential when it comes to the agenda setting, advising and creating public awareness; however, much of the efforts may be in vain as the structure remains predominantly informal utilising non-binding instruments like the issuing of declarations, guidelines and action plans, which have been agreed on the lowest common denominator generating an inefficient outcome as argued by Barston. Furthermore, the environmental agreements have been pestered by a slow implementation pace, withdrawals and bypassing without any sanctions can be applied.
What are the key differences? I tend to agree with some of the other bloggers that the key differences between the three; is how the diplomacy is conducted with security diplomacy continuing to be conducted along traditional lines behind closed doors on a bilateral basis where as trade and environmental diplomacy often are conducted on a multilateral basis with much involvement of civil society. Finally, the three are ranging at different places within the hierarchy with security at the top, then trade, and, finally, environmental issues at the bottom despite the high degree of interconnectedness.

The differences between trade,security and enviromental diplomacy

2009-04-22T19:00:00.001+01:00

Security diplomacy may seem the most important agenda in international talks; however because of the interconnectedness what globalization brought, trade and environmental diplomacy have escalating roles. Security diplomacy is mainly part of the traditional diplomacy process, which is often a bilateral but there are example of other parties being involved as well. It is mainly concerned with the physical security or integrity of a state. In the 21st century the presence of WMDs and the threat of terrorist groups make security diplomacy a crucial element. Although to control or resolve a crisis diplomatic methods are used (such as negotiations, soft power tools), the crisis is often supervised by military. The presence of the military highly distinguishes security from trade or environmental diplomacy. In recent times, the security diplomacy has been revised, by the new American administration as well as others, who claim that traditional negotiations are not effective in crisis situations and multilateral negotiations should be introduced to it. President W. Wilson also found security bilateral negotiations outdated at the end of the First World War when he blamed these secret meetings for the outbreak of the war.
Trade diplomacy on the other hand is a much more open and multilateral. It is to advance the smooth running of the free market between states often using the WTO as a mediator. It can be done bilaterally however multilateral negotiations in trade diplomacy are more common. In trade diplomacy NGOs and other non state actors are playing higher role than in the security diplomacy where state is more centric-although there are back channels, track two negotiations which can include unofficial personnel in security diplomacy. The other main difference is that within trade diplomacy hard power is not significant and it solely relies on negotiations, trade-offs and other non violent deals made between countries.
The environment diplomacy-out of the three is the most inclusive one and probably the most important one which affects everyone in the long term. In this kind of diplomacy NGOs get the highest role since they are able to get the public to cooperate. It is multilayered and the negotiations are open ended (with no known results e.g. the Kyoto protocol is going to get evaluated in 2012) therefore on environment issues it is impossible to close deals or use military power as an option. There are often statistics, charts, percentages produced by scientist. This technical and scientific nature can not be found in the above mentioned forms.
Security, trade and environmental diplomacy are more linked than it could seem at first sight. Perhaps it does not share common features but it is certainly connected. Riordan draws a very good example of how one can affect the other two and vice versa. He uses the example of an insecure farmer who overuses his land because of the unstable economic situation, the fear of poverty etc. This leads to environmental changes such as soil erosion and development issues but also to poverty and disease what can conduce unrests therefore security problems, migration which is a huge pressure on economics and subsequently a set back for trade deals.

Main distinctions between security, trade and environmental diplomacy.

2009-04-22T17:26:00.003+01:00

As we should all be aware, security, trade and environmental diplomacy are totally different from one another. First of all, security diplomacy is the oldest technique of undertaking diplomacy, which is the traditional diplomacy and is only concerned with high politics issues. It is done secretly and mostly involves states operating on a bilateral basis. In this first form of diplomacy, no actors other than states have the power to act or influence foreign policy decisions. However, as we have noted, diplomacy is gradually evolving and priorities are now many, not only related to security matters, but other issues such as trade and the environment are increasingly being on the foreign policy agenda and made public; this trend has been suggested by many to be the demise of bilateral diplomacy for multilateral diplomacy. Thus, trade diplomacy can be carried out bilaterally or multilaterally and it consists of opening the barriers between liberal democratic states to trade between them and there are some international regimes for trade that make the system work which means that it is certainly not only taken on by states. These international institutions have rendered cooperation a lot easier through the establishment of rules and practices and controlling whether governments were following these rules. This highlights that states are having less and less impact on particular issues and are even being monitored by these institutions. The last point, environmental diplomacy is, as its name implies concerned about the environment. Like trade diplomacy, it is done both bilaterally and multilaterally and other actors are involved with a great impact, predominantly non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Noteworthy however is that although the NGOs are really engaged in the process of diplomatic negotiations regarding the environment, their impact is limited since it is only states that can sign, make and implement treaties. That is to say, from a realist perspective, only states are important actors and NGOs are just useless while the neo-liberal institutionalists argue that these institutions should not be neglected in an interconnected world. Successful outcomes to environmental negotiations are hard to be achieved, realists argue because states are imprisoned by their self-interest, this was arguably why the Kyoto protocol could not be respected appropriately despite the pressures put by NGOs; also, Russia ratified the protocol only in 2004 whereas the treaty was introduced in 1997. To conclude then, one could say that even though diplomacy is changing and involving new actors, the main players remain states.

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

2009-04-22T15:53:00.002+01:00

The key differences between security, trade and environmental diplomacy in my opinion depends in some way, in the position we are looking at them. Security diplomacy its definitely one of the most important issues and a priority for the states and the society as a ‘basic need’, but a key difference is that security still being part of the so called old diplomacy, in the security case the there is not a remarkable evolution to a public diplomacy is still in a very ‘close-doors decisions’.

On other hand trade diplomacy, has dramatically changed, due importantly as an effect of globalization, the role trade diplomacy now play has been increasing in the past decades, the integration of the society and the ‘multilateral negotiations’ between states within trade diplomacy has being affecting now to global decisions, the ‘interaction’ now they have is of great impact to a global trade, and is exemplified in the World Trade Organization or in the Fair Trade movements.

Environmental diplomacy, in my view, has been implemented just as an answer or a reaction of the climatic changes, the environmental problems such as deforestation or high pollution cities are suffering. In my opinion states had failed to implemented adequate policies to ‘put a brake’ to the pollution problem. The society has been trying to make they hear via non-governmental organizations such as Greenpeace just to named one, but not with the impact or results hoped, because at the end the only one with the power to make a real change is the state.

Just to add, I think the best example in all the contexts which contains security, trade and environment, is the problem of the Weapons of Massive Destruction which threat the three. Principally the Iran’s nuclear program, which the U.S. claimed it threats the international security, Iran claimed the policies U.S. towards them and the trade sanctions affected their economy but none of them seem to be concerned in the environmental issues. In my opinion the main difference between security, trade and environment is the way they are seen, the interests diploma tics represent and the fact on how so important are they considered and served.

TRADE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DIPLOMACY: Difference between Security, Trade and Environmental Diplomacy

2009-04-22T15:28:00.005+01:00

1.

Security Diplomacy is Old Diplomacy because crisis is solved by bilateral negotiations between states. Most of the crisis is negotiated through back channel diplomacy or through intermediary. The main reasons for states using back channels diplomacy in democracies, is that leaders and decision makers may find it difficult to justify the costs of entering negotiations and the fear to make concessions in public which can be interpreted by both publics as a sign of weakness, because leaders and decision makers know that the public is watching their performance. Furthermore, it will prevent spoilers to organise and work to sabotage the negotiations. Leaders like to maintain their status quo in the public eye.

There has been some exceptions on 1991 Desert Storm war when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the security issue was multilateral. Finally, it is important to mention that the 11/09 brought terrorism into the top of international security agenda where states, multilaterally, interact more than before on the issue.

2.

Trade Diplomacy is carried out through the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the only international organisation responsible for global rules of trade between countries. The WTO came to force in 1995 in replacement of the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs (GATT). Its main works is to reduce trade protection in order to equally; all states should enjoy free markets around the world on manufactured and agricultural products. However, the system is still very difficult for the periphery due to agricultural subsidiaries in the United States of America (USA) and in the European Union (EU). There have been many rounds of negotiations, at the beginning countries were more worried with tariff reductions and when the tariff went down, countries now have shifted to non-tariff barriers to trade such as subsidies, government procurement and technical barriers to trade.

Developing countries find the WTO difficult for them because in practical terms it benefits the north. Although decisions in WTO are consensus, diplomats from the south still have to make alliances to make their ideas pass. For example, the Doha Negotiations’ one of the features was agricultural trade liberalization. But developing countries were not happy and the only solution for them was to make alliances among them to call for changes in the talks to ensure that developing country voices and concerns were heard. From there on they got their concerns heard and the south left the negotiations united.

In conclusion, although they have being systematically ignored in the early years, the developing countries of the Global South have made an important impact at Doha agricultural negotiations to influence the process and the negotiations, thanks to diplomatic cooperation.

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

2009-04-22T14:23:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

2009-04-22T07:07:00.001+01:00

The key differences between security, trade and environmental diplomacy is clear. Security diplomacy belongs to the old diplomatic process; it involves the old ideology of diplomacy in that it is followed mainly within the bilateral basis with secrecy playing a big parte on the agenda. It is a process that concentrates more on the state most important requirements, such as the protection security both national and international by regulating the balance of power, or even for instance by minimising the threat of terrorism.
Although security is important, trade and environmental diplomacy are becoming as important as security, due to the ever growing interdependency between nation- states and the continuing development of globalisation.Trade is now highly known by all worldwide and this fact alone draws attention to the need of an international agenda that deals with negotiations in order to sustain a reasonable moderate still setting for trade. This is often done multilaterally, and as a result breaks down obstacles in order to create a ‘free-market’ for all. Therefore out of all three, trade diplomacy seems to be more elastic, meaning that it allows trade rules to be controlled bilaterally and more easily.
At last, as environmental issues are becoming ever more noticeable and important for international relations, diplomacy gave light to issues such as climatic change, or even deforestation to be measured, and showed the need for regulations and guidelines to be followed up as a way of retarding its effects.
As a final point security, trade and environmental diplomacy all have distinctive roles in the international arena being security the most important one, and therefore more attractive for states. However, it does not mean that trade and environmental diplomacy are meaningful less.

Main differences between security, trade and environment diplomacy

2009-04-22T00:51:00.000+01:00

At the first sight Security, environment and trade diplomacy, seemed to be related, however its distinctions are quite obvious.
Security diplomacy uses the bilateral diplomacy as a base for its negotiations, it also often involves military backup.
Because is related to security has to have confidentiality and discretion, thus the bilateral negotiations is normally the most adopted.
For instance, during the Cuban missile crisis the President JFK’s brother Robert Kennedy was meeting in secrecy with the soviet ambassador in US Dobrynin, together they tried to solve the Cuban missile crisis.
By contrast, the trade diplomacy is more based on the multilateral diplomacy, therefore its negotiations are normally global, for instance the WTO, it is a forum for governments to negotiate trade agreements.
It looks forward to open the markets and appeals for amicable relations, based on transparency between states in order to facilitate the world market negotiations.
Regarding the environment diplomacy, it seems to be the more difficult to handle, despite been the most important as it affects all nations with no exceptions. The climate change is an issue that concerns the world and “recently” became one of the priorities in the international political agenda.
For instance, the well known Kyoto Protocol (international agreement), the US under Bill Clinton government refused to sign it. The US could not commit to reduce its greenhouse gases emissions.
Thus, it can be argued that in the environment negotiations is more difficult to achieve a general agreement.
In sum, security diplomacy involves mainly secrecy and is only carried out by states with no involvement of non-state actors; the trade negotiations by sharp contrast with the security diplomacy, it normally “advertises” its agenda in order to bring business and foreigners investments to their countries; finally the environment diplomacy is by far more “advertised” than the other two, perhaps due to its importance and to bring more supporters in order to achieve its goal: to tackle the environmental problems around the world.

Differences between security, trade and environmental diplomacy

2009-04-21T23:49:00.025+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the difference between security, trade and environmental diplomacy

2009-04-21T17:43:00.003+01:00

The distinction between security, trade and environmental diplomacy is evident. Security diplomacy is part of the traditional diplomatic process, it is a measure that involves the old principles of diplomacy in that it is undertaken mainly in bilateral bases and has secrecy at the top of its agenda. It is a process mainly concerned with state centric needs, such as the maintenance of international or state security through ensuring the balance of power, maintaining the strategy of nuclear deterrence as in the Cold War and most recently, curbing the threat of global terrorism. That notwithstanding, security is important, however, with intense interdependence and globalization as well as global issues, increasingly makes trade and environmental diplomacy as important as security.
Trade which is more globalize than ever before draws to the international agenda negotiations in order to maintain a more if you like liberal peaceful environment for trade. This type of diplomacy is often done in multilateral bases, and thus opens up barrier that are against world trade and known as the western free-market. The idea of free market stands to maintain non-intervention by states or government in international market. What can be said here is that trade diplomacy is more flexible in that it can be carried out in multilateral or still at bilateral bases to maintain the rules of trade.
Lastly, with environmental problems increasingly being pushed up to the top of the ladder in international relations thus, made diplomacy in this field more relevant. Issues like climatic change, ozone depletion, deforestation, extinctions and lot more; needed rules and negotiations to contain more environmental degradation.
To conclude, what can be gainfully said is that security, trade and environmental diplomacy all have different roles they play. From the realist view, security is more important and as a result is more carried out by states. On the other hand, trade diplomacy mostly includes the liberal values of maintaining a free and stable environment for trade to exist, while environmental diplomacy incorporates both the liberal-realist values, for while the realist stresses that states are the only effective actor in diplomatic process the liberals focus more on corporations both governmental and non-governmental level.

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

2009-04-21T08:19:00.004+01:00

A distinguishable point is that diplomatic negotiations relating to security, trade and environment use different tools as achieve their goals. Security negotiations are backed by military force. Together, the use of diplomacy and military force, are seen as the traditional instruments of foreign policy. However, growing cost of social and economical welfare is directing countries to look for alternative instruments to strengthen their hand in negotiations. The Obama administration, although not dismissing the use of military completely, have been emphasizing the soft power of diplomacy and as Hillary mentioned, smart power. Meanwhile trade diplomacy and foreign policy which, usually support each other, has been inclined to go in different directions. Here, military force does not back the negotiation and thus, trade diplomacy and aid are used to threat and occasionally is used to assure compliance from others. Both can be offered, or alternatively, withheld in order to blackmail others to pursue policies that they would not otherwise choose freely to do.

Despite the growing recognition that working in parallel are crucial to produce a feasible results in diplomatic relations in economic and green matters, every so often their policies collide. The main objective of trade diplomacy is, ultimately, to promote free market. Growth, if not sustainable, is the ultimate enemy of environmental diplomacy. The later is not backed by military force, cannot pressure with trade or aid, its only bargaining tool is the manipulation of public opinion. Thus, for trade and environment transparency and multilateral negotiation are crucial to produce legitimacy and successful outcomes. But for highly sensitive security matters, this is not usually the case. For instance, a bilateral peace agreement of peace between Israel and Palestine would have an enormous impact on diplomatic relations within Middle Eastern countries as well its relations with the West. In such occasions, for security reasons, secrecy must take place until any feasible agreement is settled. This is because states in such situations, usually get less of what they bargaining for. In addition, those in position to negotiate are often confronted with fiercely opposition and thus there own safety is at jeopardy.

It is also worth mentioning that the biggest trading powers, United States and the European Union seems to have a better diplomatic trade and security relations than environmental ones. As an example, both players have been working closely as to solve the present alarming credit crunch (G-20) and Britain is the US strongest ally on the ‘war on terror’. France has, lately, joined NATO again. Nevertheless, when the concern is environment they interests diverge enormously. In Europe, policy has been driven by consumers and lobby groups that favor limits on greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, policy has been driven by producer interests, mainly in the energy sector, which oppose controls. In the South, for example, there are clearly conflicting interests between the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and those of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), which fear sea-level rise resulting from climate change due to burning of fossil fuel. Such rapidly industrializing nations as Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, Mexico, and Thailand also have very different interests from the poorer countries of Africa, Asia, and Central and South America. In this regard, those transatlantic differences have inhibited progress. Thus,the pursue of national interest will impactly directly on the counties' diplomatic policies

In sum, the key difference lays on how diplomatic relations whether is concerning environment, security or trade are conducted. Although, multilateral negotiation and high degree of transparency, arguably, has produced immense gains in areas such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation and disarmament, occasionally, as mentioned above, bilateral agreements and secrecy is the best diplomatic tool to assure meaningful and desired end.

My understanding of diplomacy today

2009-04-19T17:20:00.000+01:00

In this blog I will give my opinion about diplomacy in world politics. My opinion since the start of the module has changed. At the beginning of this module I did not know that diplomacy is categorized in to traditional and new diplomacy. I started to read various literature about diplomacy in the past and I found that it was changing through the time along with changes in the world.
The greatest thing which I have researched during this module was Public Diplomacy. I knew that diplomacy is all about negotiations and communication with foreign officials. Also I knew about consular section role in diplomacy. But I never thought that Public Diplomacy could exist, and could play such a huge role for countries success. Now for me looks obvious that without Public Diplomacy country cannot achieve much, and powerful countries must pay lot of attention to Public Diplomacy if they interested to stay powerful. Therefore from my point of view Diplomacy started to look even more complicated. Diplomacy is involved in every single level of communication between two nations despite there is officials or any other individual, with the aim to achieve something beneficial for own country.

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

2009-04-19T15:28:00.000+01:00

The security, trade and environmental diplomacy are related to one other at the same time having some differences. Security diplomacy is carried out secretly within certain number of individuals who have various tasks: negotiating, spreading propaganda, spying etc. These individual have limited information on various aspects and usually having information related to their mission, in order to avoid leak of information which could reduce level of security. So security diplomacy has limited openness to the staff that crying missions therefore have even more limited information to the public, for the same security reasons. Today security diplomacy is many multilateral negotiations and assured through alliances such as NATO. This gives greater security, because military resources control is centralised, plus alliances gives more information sources, and backchannels.

The trade diplomacy is more open than security diplomacy, but of course there exists some secrecy as well. Through trade diplomacy is assured countries wealth, and development. Therefore countries negotiating at multilateral level, for instance in WTO and concluding their negotiations by bilateral, sometimes multilateral agreements. Trade diplomacy gives more information for public in order to encourage business and foreign investments in their country. But trade diplomacy has another key aspect which is related to security, and usually used by multilateral agreements, for instance implementation of embargo on countries which is violating international agreements. Therefore trade diplomacy to some extent helps to ensure peace and security. Also trade diplomacy has another dimension which is progressing at regional level such as EU. There is commonly agreed trade policy which helps region to stay competitive in global market.

The environmental diplomacy is related to security, because natural disasters possessing threat to all countries, and strong economically or military states cannot deal this problem alone. There at this diplomacy all countries are equal to some extent, not like in security or trade area. Actions must be taken commonly by all countries rather than by individual and secret decisions. This diplomacy is open to public at largest level compared to security and trade diplomacy. The reason it is so open because this diplomacy is targeting everyone and would like to convince every single individual to take part in helping to tackle environmental problems. Environmental diplomacy is related to trade diplomacy because, environmental problems emerging because of large populations which requires lots of food, various commodities and transportation facilities. Despite the location of production or transportation, the environmental damage is done on global level therefore everyone are feeling consequences. This means that individual countries or certain regions cannot solve this problem alone and there is needed global action. So single country or region cannot imply environmental rules and regulations for all manufacturers in own territory, because this would disadvantage their trades. Some manufacturers would have to cover environmental costs while in other countries not. So in this area is not possible success without common agreement.

Key differences between trade, security and environmental diplomacy.

2009-04-17T16:24:00.001+01:00

The areas of security, trade and environmental all appear to be quite different they do however having overlapping areas, particularly in regard to the environment and security, which are increasing all the time. The major difference between security and the other two areas has to be the fact that security diplomacy is often and quite rightly carried out in a secretive manner, along more traditional lines. Security is an area which is and should continue to be managed by trained persons with expertise in this area. Tied to the secretive nature of diplomacy, is the use of back channels between higher level statespersons. This provides a way for states (more specifically heads of states) to conduct diplomacy on a personal and one to basis and not in the gaze of the public or media and can have very positive and rapid results. A good example of this is the use of back channels by Robert Kennedy and Ambassador Dobrynin during the Cuban missile crisis. As well as using the more traditional methods of diplomacy when it comes to security the world has also taken on a more unified and multilateral approach through the use of organisations like the UN, NATO and the AU. These provide a centralised manner for security issues to be resolved. I feel this shows security to be quite unique in the field of diplomacy.

Trade Diplomacy is an area which is changing, with more and more people and groups becoming involved in it. It also seems to evoke strong emotions with mass protests taking place when groups such as the G20 meet. Trade is an area which is beginning to have a greater focus on the environment with concern for issues such as the degradation of land through over farming and clearing of rainforests. Both trade and security have similarities in that they are issues which no state can afford to ignore and constantly seek to have a greater influence or involvement in.

In contrast to trade and security diplomacy, the environment is something that affects everyone regardless. It is incredibly complicated area for diplomacy and attempts at a unified global response (The Kyoto protocol) seem to constantly fail with states such as the US refusing to sign up to it. This demonstrates one of the major differences between trade and security, where states have a vested interest in being involved whereas the environment in some eyes is seen as a far lesser issue. It is however becoming more prevalent with the environment itself is becoming a security concern as earths natural resources become scarcer the threat of conflict over what remains becomes greater.

Impressions of the 'old diplomacy'

2009-04-03T01:29:00.002+01:00

As modern technology advances, so does the complexity of the world’s concern. As a matter of fact they become so complex, that regardless how powerful a state might be, transboundary issue such as the environment, pandemics, terrorism and more recently, the widespread economic crisis, cannot be tackled meaningfully by unilateral actions. The G-20 meeting in London is an acknowledgment that the old bilateral relations might be on its way to extinction as today’s political networking, occasions in which domestic policies does not have an impact internationally, are estremely rare. Despite that, as Hocking argues, “globalisation has not rendered national governments irrelevant, but it has made its deficiencies more explicit in terms of knowledge, flexibility and speed in responding to global problems. Nicholas Cull has also emphasized this point by stressing that the new era brought about innovation, but has not undermined the relevance of the public diplomacy history.
Scholars now speak of ‘the new public diplomacy’, which involves the proliferation of international actors (including international organisations, non-governmental organisations and corporations); the arrival of global digital and real-time technologies, thus blurring the lines between the domestic and international news spheres. According to Mark Leonard public diplomacy can no longer be seen as ‘an add on to the rest of diplomacy’ because it has acquired central position when interacting in multidimensional spheres with several other actors. The growing concern and interest among the public with diplomatic relations made credibility crucial to the sustainability of the power of soft influence. Non-governmental organizations are usually seen as credible institutions, therefore are becoming increasingly active player in public diplomacy.
Nevertheless, not everyone sees relevance in the non-governmental organization’s role; Berridge, for instance, offering a narrower view of diplomacy, sees it as propaganda or merely public relations. The paradox is that, although there seems to be a consensus about the necessity to spread the power of influence, especially emphasized by the Obama’s administration in the form of smart power, the amount invested in cultivating relationships with the rest of the world has steadily declined. The biggest challenge to public diplomacy is that it requires credibility, which is a virtual image that takes decades and even centuries to be built, but seconds to be destroyed, as Bush and Blair experienced with the invasion of Iraq.

The most important aspects on new diploamcy

2009-03-31T13:57:00.002+01:00

Based on the seminar discussions and according to my research I found public diplomacy the only amenable form of new diplomacy which can only have positive aspects if it is carried out responsibly. The most popular example of using public diplomacy tools successfully was the Cold War, where the US did not apply hard power but stick to using influence on foreign publics in order to cooperatively defeat communism. In those times broadcasting, media, positive propaganda-the instruments of public diplomacy- helped towards ending the long battle of ideologies. As we can see public diplomacy is not that new, only the technology which is used in order to make public diplomacy more efficient. In the raising age of technology when the interaction between the public and diplomats is a matter of few seconds by using the internet makes public diplomacy matter more than ever. Although it is a very important sector of today’s world we must not forget that public can be sometimes irrational; therefore the governments are taking them at arm’s length. In order to professionalize the relationship, new diplomacy is increasingly relying on NGO’s and other non state actors. I believe that the reputation of NGO’s is increasing in a positive way (because of their structure and possibly because they are not profit driven etc.) therefore the states are more willing to include them in diplomacy. To comment also on multilateral diplomacy, I believe that states should bare in mind that globalization and the interconnectedness are around making states rely on each other, however some of the traditional diplomacy aspect like representation or traditional embassies should not be abandoned. Building personal relationships, trust, and reputation especially in this impersonal era is remaining to be a very important part of diplomacy, whether it’s public, multilateral or traditional.

The most important aspect of New Diplomacy following the seminars 5 & 7.

2009-03-28T17:19:00.001Z

In my opinion the most important aspects of the new diplomacy is multilateral diplomacy, where more than two states are involved in negotiations, and the public diplomacy-soft power the citizens as well as the media play a greater role.
Before in the “old diplomacy” non-state actors, such as NGOs, did not make part of the negotiations process, nowadays, with the new diplomacy, the diplomacy agenda has become much richer.
In multilateral diplomacy, the fact that more than two states are involved in a negotiation can facilitate the whole process, for instances, states have different points of view, plus the non-state actors can create pressure in the decision making as well as the media and public opinion.
Issues such as environment and human rights can ”move” a lot of people such as international organizations, in this case Greenpeace and the Amnesty International respectively, and other singular activists and all that can weigh a lot in the final decision.
Also in the multilateral relationships all states are equal when negotiating, there they are all at the same level, there are no powerful and weak states in this situation. However power difference can still exist. While states may have one vote each, the more powerful states usually dominate the weaker states. They can use bilateral aid relations which weaker states to secure their votes, for instance. They also benefit from the exchanging of experiences and information, the more states the better in a sense that the discussion will involve variety of opinions.
However is worth mentioning that multilateral diplomacy can also create more conflicts and tensions between the states involved.
Overall, even if multilateral diplomacy can create awkward situations between states such as in extreme cases with physical assault and the policies changing can be delayed in comparison to bilateral negotiations, on the other hand, it can create more opportunities for other less favourable states, as they will take equal part as the other powerful states in the negotiations, and also it makes possible for the public to demonstrate their opinions, as well as it makes the indirect politics possible.

The New Diplomacy

2009-03-27T11:57:00.015Z

The concept of the New diplomacy primarily consists of 'para diplomacy', public diplomacy and multilateral diplomacy. Although they are arguably, equally relevant and interrelated; acting as 'vehicles of transparency' between state operations and the public, their uniqueness is commensurate to their relatative impacts on society.

The displeasure and 'global' protests of the masses registered against the (US/UK versus IRAQ) war in 2003 proved futile. Six years on, we live with the human and financial costs and the utter declining confidence in governments- A glaring example of failed public diplomacy. Eventhough claims of rebuilding Iraq are being preached, the selfish pursuits of 'national interests' are not opaque to the people these governments serve. Inappropriate actions which led to 'this mess' cannot be undone, and lessons learnt may be inadequate as the British public are still in demand of a public enquiry.
The intervention of internatonal NGOs (Amnesty International) however, become relevant in the extremes of war crimes by providing legal representation regarding issues of rape, discrimination and trampled human rights.

Several instances where non state actors have played a major role included celebrity diplomacy; where the record numbers of the public have responded by contributing to raise funds towards HIV/AIDS projects in Africa.(Public health diplomacy)- The money raised in 24hrs by 'Comic Relief'' is undoudtedly unmatched by what departments of health programmes of Countries can do for the same purposes.

After two decades of the absence of diplomatic relations between the US and Iran the mere organsation of sports between them in the long ran helped to improve relations. The referee was an Iranian-American and though there were tensions in the stadium the Iranians who cheered for the Iranians had come from Europe and America. This kind of relationship which was fostered between the two countries as result of (Sport diplomacy) would have taken them a very long and expensive route to attain.

The practice of bilateral diplomacy though completely unavoidable, is narrow to its achievements on selected matters such as national security. However the NGO diplomacy by far outweighs the its achievents as it constanty aims to improve preserve the very existence humanity-human security.

There is a catlogue of countless acievements of NGOs due to their global audience and massive resources to deal with specific social issues. A common example is their constant feature in UN formal meetings and conferences where they constantly make specialist contributions which has aided the drafting of the childrens act, contributions to poverty and socio-economic factors including immigration.

It is however apparent that non state actors, ranging from individuals to huge international organisations through their actions or operations can reach the very core of social issues that states otherwise may or can not deal with to mobilise maximum communal benefit.

The democratisation of world governance that 'non-state actors' hope for will be truly triumphant in the era where civil society is able to shape foreign policy.

What is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy?

2009-03-25T17:34:00.000Z

The main difference we can appreciate from the ‘old diplomacy’ transformation to a ‘new diplomacy’ is the way of how politics are based now, firstly no more politics behind ‘close-doors’, an open dialogue between countries, giving place to a new and dynamic ‘public diplomacy’ where politics are now more transparent and where the citizens have a greater role. Secondly the ‘Para-diplomacy’ of non state actors and the rise of the media as a soft power. Thirdly a Multilateral-diplomacy, have completely changed the way diplomacy is conducted. In my opinion these three factors are crucial in today’s diplomacy, and it is difficult to look at it without one. Nevertheless for me, NGOs are the most important aspect in new diplomacy, they have affected not only the way diplomacy is conducted, it also has imposed new rules to the game, and most of the time have been the political decisions-makers for most of the countries. In some cases NGOs such as multinationals corporations had gain equal status and rights as countries have, and used it against countries who opposed them, eroding their sovereignty in an incredible way. They have been playing the role of diplomats so well, that today their impact is crucial in first and third world countries. As an example we just have to look at Shell Oil in Nigeria, ‘Maquiladoras’ in Guatemala, the Roman Catholic Church, Al-Qaeda in USA or what sub Americans-state units had done to controlled and ruled the Canal Zone in Panama. NGOs have immense influence in the international system, participating in the majority of global diplomacy, and even to challenge global rules. However the roles non state actors play and the influence they exert, depend on political, economic, and social context.

ESSENTIALS OF NEW DIPLOMACY

2009-03-24T19:52:00.001Z

After the second World War, the need for a new type of diplomacy was advocated for, due to inefficiencies of the old or traditional diplomacy. As to the question, public diplomacy and NGOs, are more interesting to me. First of all, we have to consider what distinct public or new diplomacy from the traditional one. New diplomacy advocated for a more open diplomacy. Public diplomacy as an organ of new diplomacy help we the public to gain access to information’s albeit multilateral or bilateral diplomacy. We as the general public are entitled to the knowledge of outcomes of negotiations that involves our interests. Also, increasingly, public diplomacy is very important in the 21st century due to intense globalization and interdependence. We now live in a world whereby states borders are easily permeable as well as global issues like global warming, starvation, poevrty, that calls for public awareness.
On the other hand, NGOs are increasingly relevant, because they help to foster public interest to some extent. As increasingly known, states are no longer the main actors in international relations, global issues like poverty, environmental issues, are best handled by specialize NGOs, thus, NGOs solicits and advocates for the welfare of the public. What can be gain said, is that, NGOs like Green Peace, help the general public in lobbying state government for the betterment of our planet. This they do through soft power, and with the help of sophisticated technological advancement, like the internet.
However, public diplomacy lack the coercive will, because autocratic rule can ignore pressure from the public thereby continue the old policy of secrecy. Even democratic regimes still engage in secret diplomacy. Consequently, since NGOs are not accountable to the public like democratic regimes do, the questions is, do they really pursue the interest of the public or their interest?
Finally, public diplomacy and the influence of NGO’S on world politics have created a new platform for states to struggle in monopolization and compete with the new global order. What can be said, is that politics or diplomacy remains the same, only with exception of few innovations

With reference to the discussions of weeks 5-7, What are the most important aspects of the New Diplomacy?

2009-03-24T17:31:00.002Z

The idea of New diplomacy is a multi-faceted concept. Three major factures of today’s diplomatic relations that have been discussed over the last few weeks are Public diplomacy, Conference diplomacy and the roles of Non-Governmental organisations in diplomatic circles. Public diplomacy is intrinsically linked to the idea of ‘soft power’ and public relations. Soft power is a term coined in the early 1990’s by Joseph Nye and can be defined as

‘The ability to get what you want through attraction rather then coercion’

The modern diplomatic core must contain elements with the ability to ‘sell’ ideas to the public. With the end of the cold war these ideas have become less ideological in nature and more linked to influencing public opinion about policies, trade and culture. On our recent trip to the Danish Embassy we were given examples of current exhibitions and the courting of elements of the press in an attempt to influence the Danish image abroad. This type of diplomacy has become very important, especially with regard to the increasing globalisation of the world. It may be fair to say that public opinion is now almost as important abroad as it is at home for a country. Two major examples of this have been the recent demonstrations against Israeli involvement in Gaza and those in opposition to anti- Islamic cartoons in Danish paper. These examples show us two important factors in public diplomacy; firstly they act as prove of the globalised world in which we live (neither of these events had a direct impact on the British public yet it was in London that these two demonstrations took place). Secondly that, if either Israel or Denmark wished to raise public opinion of them then it must be done through the use of ‘soft power’. There is no real option for countries to coerce the general public of another country, this must be done through the public orientated, selling of these countries as attractive, ‘decent’ world actors.

Conference Diplomacy is another important element of the New Diplomacy that really finds its roots in the post-Wilsonian age. Jan Melissen of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations attributes the concept of ‘summit’ meetings to Winston Churchill who stated that ‘it is not easy to see how things could be worsened by a parley at the summit’. This statement however has the opposing argument that, just because a politician has been voted to power in a country, that does not mean they have the ability or necessary training to talk on specific issues on behalf of the country.

This level of personal contact at the top has however proved on occasion to be a defining factor in international relations. Former President Ronald Regan famously stated that it was only after personally meeting Gorbachev in Geneva in 1985 that he started to believe an understanding could be reached with the Soviet Union. It is also important to note that multi-lateral meetings between countries are virtually the only way that conversation about issues of importance can be carried out between the representatives of 2 or more countries in real-time. It may be argued that placing prominent leaders in a situation where they are encouraged to discuss certain issues in the here and now encourages them to come to and agreement quickly and rationally. As Lloyd George stated in the early 20^th century ‘ If you want to settle a thing, you see your opponent and talk it over. The last thing you do is write him a letter.’

The role of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) in modern diplomacy is a relatively modern concept, and according to some is one that is set to rise. According to Riordan the modern age has seen a redefinition of several key political concepts. National and International crisis for example are increasingly being seen to include famine, disease, migration and economic issues as well as more traditional crisis situations (most notably armed conflict). It may be viewed as a natural progression therefore that specialist groups are increasingly courted by certain world governments for their specific knowledge on issues. NGO’s and specialists may also have a better reputation then government officials and therefore may well be more trusted by another country or culture. For example, Dr Daud Abdullah and Dr Musharraf Hussain of the Muslim Council of Great Britain flew to Iraq in 2004 in an attempt to gain the release of the British hostage Ken Bigley. Although they were unsuccessful it can be argued that they were in a better position to put pressure on the hostage takers then the disliked and un-trusted British Government.

There is however an obvious argument against the use of NGO’s in the world of diplomacy. Most obviously that they are mostly single issue groups who cannot be held accountable in the same way that governments are. It could also be argued that bringing NGO’s into the diplomatic arena only serves to bring yet more self-serving and conflicting views to the discussion table, thus prolonging and convoluting the act of diplomacy.

In Conclusion I would argue that the three aforementioned facets of New Diplomacy must be equally and carefully balanced in there use to produce a well rounded and secure diplomatic ability, one that will allow a country to function internationally on many levels.

The Dalai Lama barred from attending conference in South Africa

2009-03-24T14:01:00.003Z

Thought you might find this article interesting....(just click on the title)

2009-03-24T08:41:00.000Z

The Most important aspect of New Diplomacy

The most important aspect of New Diplomacy is that it is new especially, since the end of the cold war. It does and practice new forms of diplomacy. Non-governmental organisations, environmentalist, public opinion, news media, even celebrities seem to have an effect in a way diplomacy is conducted. Although I believe Bilateral Diplomacy remain to be a defining factor of the international system, gone are the days where by political issues are dealt by state representatives behind closed doors and result is delivered. Today, issues are trashed out among the different groups, in full glare of the media and round the clock some of whom even have acquired a seat at the UN.

New Diplomacy’s main feature is inclusiveness. State less nations, Poverty reduction, the environment, war, organised crime, security, globalisation etc. all these issues have victims as well as beneficiaries. In New Diplomacy, their effect is discussed and brought to the attention of the International Affairs by their respective representatives. As well as increasing awareness among the general public and create huge debate, New Diplomacy, like many other things willingly or forcefully had to evolve, into a new era-public opinion matters and politicians are well aware of that.

Hirut

The 3-wheeled car

2009-03-23T21:41:00.002Z

this week, we have been asked to consider which is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy based on the discussions in seminars 5 -7. The main topics of these seminars were: public diplomacy, NGO's and their (questionable) role and (questionable) legitimacy and conference diplomacy.

the above 3 aspects of new diplomacy have taught me several things:
1. Soft power/propaganda is indeed a powerful force to reckon with as demonstrated previously in the world wars, the cold war, and the present day 'Americanization' blame-game.
2. NGO's such as medecins sans frontiers (doctors without borders) might be more useful in certain circumstances than any other form of state-led diplomacy, especially if outbreaks of a curable disease are concerned.
3. Conference diplomacy is another aspect that is highly useful if and when it is relevant to the circumstances in which it is used. for example, its interesting to note how the APEC (Asia-pacific economic cooperation) meeting held on the 9th of December 1999 held an additional meeting regarding Indonesia's failure to handle the situation in East Timor at the time, and although they failed to come to any unified agreement, it is still thought that just the fact that 75% of the worlds' GDP was sat around a table discussing an event like that placed a generous amount of pressure on Indonesia to attempt to resolve the problem more efficiently.

However, i believe that the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is not particularly any of the above, or a combination of all three, but rather the fact that they all work in conjunction with, and based on, the old diplomacy.
Therefore the most important aspect is not any particular part of the make up of new diplomacy, but rather its versatility.

Much like a 3-wheeled car, the 4th wheel of the new diplomacy and its effectiveness is everything that old diplomacy entails: both through the interactions that have been successful, and the interactions that haven't. the lessons we have learned, and those we have failed to. The rapid interactions, and the non-existent ones. The fact that we are still dealing with people, between people, for people.

If we were to take each aspect detailed from weeks 5 to 7 individually, we would find that each of the aspects has particular advantages and disadvantages, and that they are all aspects that are as important as the circumstance(s) may call for its relevance. Soft power cannot be used in every situation, as neither NGO's or IGO's for that matter can provide rapid-reaction forces for every latent conflict, as conference diplomacy might not be the most relevant form of diplomacy available when dealing with a problem that is strictly bilateral to begin with.
However, this is not an issue that is exclusive to the new diplomacy, old diplomacy also has this separation of useful aspects. After all, one has to be sufficiently knowledgeable to distinguish between a situation that calls for secret diplomacy and a situation that calls for open-channel diplomacy.

Evaluating the new diplomacy in terms of its individual components that may or may not make up this questionable theory (for Berridge denies its existence) does not, in my opinion, provide a sufficiently equal ground on which to evaluate its efficiency (or its importance for that matter). The fact that it has managed to integrate itself into what was originally considered to be a more state-centric version of diplomacy to turn into a seamless fabric of possible manners of diplomatic interaction is taking the turn from attempting to drive a car with a busted tire to a brand-spanking-new Porsche.

The Three Pillars of New Diplomacy

2009-03-23T20:14:00.002Z

public diplomacy, the Para- diplomacy of non-state actors, and inclusive forms of multilateralism are the three pillars of new diplomacy. Although they are different in many ways but they are interconnected elements. All three could be seen as cofactors. Discussion concerning new diplomacy to overstate the importance of multilateral diplomacy for example is to argue that Para-diplomacy and public diplomacy are subsets of multilateral diplomacy. However the rise of multilateral diplomacy as overarching factor has gained considerable ground in the course of the past century.

Although the cold war rivalry undermined multilateral diplomacy in which due to excessive secrecy of two superpowers and glorified state to state relations. The United Nations, The European Union and Non-Aligned movement made enormous contribution to flourish multilateral diplomacy. In terms of representation at the headquarters of the UN most of the countries are represented and it can said that the UN is useful to all countries in general but particularly to the countries which are for some reasons have never opened embassies. It can be argued that the UN as non-state actor an advantage for multilateral diplomacy. This clearly shows that how non-state actors interrelated with multilateral diplomacy.

Moreover public diplomacy also is interrelated with the above mentioned two elements of new diplomacy in which its main features, including international information systems which is used to bridge as strategic communications service for foreign community and Educational and cultural affairs mutual understanding among different nations and also international Broadcasting providing information in order to build relationships.

My over all argument is. it is important not to divorce public diplomacy from Para-diplomacy of non-state actors and multilateral diplomacy. All could be seen as cofactors and equally it is important no over or underestimate the relative influence of each of these cofactors

Important aspects of New Diplomacy

2009-03-23T02:13:00.002Z

It was still a question of whether there was anything new in so-called new diplomacy, but from recent seminars it has become much more clear that there has been developments, improvements and new aspects.

To begin with , multilateral and conference diplomacy has certainly emerged as an important factor in diplomacy . It is basically a number of conferences and meetings attended my more than three states at the same time. It is differentiated from the bilateral diplomacy were only two parties were involved and both had to reach an agreement if one resisted than the negotiation failed. By contrast , multilateral diplomacy provides the best chance for an effective and successful negotiations by giving them an opportunity to make decisions by majority voting. A good instance of this would be the general assembly within the UN. Moreover, the post-Cold war multilateralism is characterised by more complex agendas of conferences and negotiations with large number of issues and the growing involvement of experts , citizens groups and NGO's. This inclusive forms of diplomacy are very important to maintain global peace and security. For instance the USA has an agreement with over hundred countries on crime solving process. If an american citizen commits a crime and flees to other country , that country's authorities will send the criminal back to USA for the required punishment and that goes same for the USA.

Over the past years NGO's have played and increasingly influential role in international negotiations mainly on enviromental issues, but how far can they go , after all they are not elected bodies. However, non-governmental organisations like Greenpeace can really be of big help in tackling environmental problems especially with its worldwide precense.

Many would say, the globalized world we live in today have increasingly brought new challenges to diplomacy , but with all these new improvements and developments the new diplomacy is making a way forward.

it doesn't work when I want to comment...any ideas?

2009-03-23T00:51:00.001Z

it doesn't work when I want to comment...any ideas?
I'm so posed to use the google account as id? well, but no comment became posted...
Help!
/malin

Impressions of New Diplomacy

2009-03-22T23:59:00.000Z

I believe that the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is the way diplomacy is now supported with other means at a state’s disposal in order to achieve maximum results. A state’s effort to shape the public opinion of another state in order to create its favourable image is one such exercise, as in the absence of public support, the diplomacy can’t yield its desired results. The use of Information and Communications Technology to reach the desired audience is perhaps one of the most effective way of promoting a state’s agenda. A network of TV and Radio stations operating in different languages is used as tool to affect the public sentiment of a particular state. This dissimation of information using the modern means of Information Technology plays a key role in the operation of diplomacy. In addition to this, the emergence of non state actors such as NGO’s has also transformed the way diplomacy is now conducted. These NGO’s often do the spade work in promoting a state’s agenda and pave the way for a subsequent diplomacy. There has also been an issue of these NGO’s undermining a state’s sovereignty and its evident from their activities in various parts of the world. All these developments have made the new diplomacy more challenging and has transformed the way diplomacy is now conducted.

The main aspect of New Diplomacy

2009-03-22T23:30:00.003Z

Between seminars 5 and 7 we have covered three key aspects of the New Diplomacy: Public Diplomacy, emergence of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as diplomats and Conference Diplomacy. It is rather difficult to decide upon the most improtant aspect of the New Diplomacy, taking into account considerable amount of impact all three have made on the conduct of diplomacy. Nevertheless, a judgement has to be made.

Rise of NGOs is certainly an important factor in the changing paradigm of diplomacy, however, not a new one, preceded by similar non-state actors the likes of Roman Catholic Church, and not the only one of its kind in the modern context, accompanied by a number of other non-state actors such as celebrity diplomats and pressure groups. As for the conference diplomacy, its emergence is certainly having a major influence on the constant reshaping of modern diplomacy by empowering the 'openness' aspect of it. Nevertheless, it can also be seen merely as the updated version of summit diplomacy, which in its term, although originating during the Second World War, coined by Winston Churchill, can be seen as an outgrowth of the late 19th/early 20th centuries Hague conferences and League of Nations meetings. Public diplomacy, on the other hand, despite possible historical links to France's efforts to promote their language and culture in the 17th and 18th centuries, largely defined in terms of a whole new way of foreign policy making and a major information and communication technological revolution, is clearly a new development in the world of diplomacy.

The new diplomacy

2009-03-22T23:20:00.002Z

I think after the all the knowledge and understanding of the past few weeks regarding the three topics which where public diplomacy conference diplomacy and NGO/celebrity diplomacy, I bebleve the most that NGO/celebrity diplomacy has got me wondering and asking myself could this type of diplomacy be coined as new diplomacy. NGO/celebrity diplomacy has been growing over the past sixty years. After both WWII and the Cold War non-state actors have become vital in trying to solve some of the worlds worst problems. for over 15 years now NGO's have been welcomed in to the UN and have worked on some important cases for example Ottawa treaty in 1997 in which 122 governments’ signed a life time ban on landmines being used or imported. The NGO's used many tat tics for example multilateral diplomacy with heads of states and lobbying something which was oly reserved to diplomats and other governmental officials. this type of diplomacy just shows us how diplomacy is transforming. This campaigned was all NGO related it also involved other non state actors such as late Princess Diana she was considers a celebrity diplomat she also used her status to help with the campaigning.According to the author Willets Dina “transformed diplomacy from a narrow confined vehicle of states craft to embracing wider diffuse dynamic” other celebrities also are changing the face of diplomacy for example Angelina Jolie who became UNHCR ambassador in 2001, she has been to economic forums disused important issues with government leaders about alot of her humanitarian work. this type of diplomacy would have never have even been dreamed of centuries ago. This why i think that this type of diplomacy is the most important because it has a laregr effect not just on the government but on the ordinary citizen.

Most important aspects of New Diplomacy

2009-03-22T23:17:00.012Z

Its hard to just pick one of the many important features of new diplomacy, all important aspects of New diplomacy I would say is due to the emergents of globalism. That people, businesses and states try to interact more with other nations and this it is made simpler by aviation and other speedy transport systems. This has increased amount of information, trade and political relationships immensely. The internet is very useful tool to get first contact and then to maintain relationships. Furthermore reporting changes or advancements world wide has been made easier and the web is also a good place to publicise and spread views.

From the creation of League of Nations states found multilateral negotiations in conferences and summits very important since it went much faster if all concerned parties (or allies) were present. Soft power is the way to get more influence in these forums for negotiation. Profiling of once country is more and more important since the number of states has increased. To try to stick out of the crowd, to get heard by having leading research in a field, specialise in a issue like development, or be leading in banking will get a state power of persuasion in these as well as other areas. This is the way of Public diplomacy.

People form different countries find common values in international NGO's they join, to try to get influence on the establishment not only in their own country but mostly to change something in a different country where they feel/hear help is needed (public to government). NGO's are a very important development for democratizing the international system, overall public diplomacy is most valuable for smaller states or entities. Geoffrey Wiseman states that since NGO's now are more and more recognized actors by states, we are even able to speak of polylateralism. NGO's are the strongest actors of public diplomacy since they are the most specialised and profiled actors out there. They also mostly uses media to “shame and blame” but also to raise awareness of the issue of their interest. Brian Hocking states: “The more diverse membership and non-hierarchical quality of public policy networks promote collaboration and learning, and speed up the acquisition and processing of knowledge. ” ( in 'Reconfiguring public diplomacy' on www.fco.gov.uk).

To conclude a mix of public and polylateralism are the most important aspects of the new diplomacy since they represent a way to a more publicly open and scrutinized diplomatic society which was what Woodrow Wilson wanted from the beginning. However not all NGO's might have peaceful agendas or want to work within the parliamentarian framework (AL-Qaeda, Claim the Streets) but I guess that is the double edge of democracy.

The new diplomacy

2009-03-22T23:17:00.006Z

One of the important differences that the new diplomacy had from traditional diplomacy was that it became less secretive. It was decided that information about agreements reached between decision makers was to be made more available to the public. But I think the most important part, in particular for the current era, relates to the groups and people who are actually involved in the decision making process. Since 1918, due to the implementation of Wilson’s ideas, states are no longer the only contributors to decision making processes within international politics. In other words, there was a move towards multilateral and or conference diplomacy, and also that decision making processes would involve NGOs and other non-state actors (as opposed to the previous focus on bi-lateral diplomacy, only between states). These more inclusive forms of diplomacy are important in contributing to global peace and security.
From our visit to the embassy, it could be seen that although networking and interaction with foreign ministries remains an essential part to the carrying out of their tasks, they also interact with NGOs and other non-state actors, which plays an important part and helps compliment procedures.
By including a wider range of groups and people, the decision making process can have much wider democratic legitimacy and also access to expertise (some issues, for example civil aviation, require specialised information). This relates to the fact that as the agenda of diplomacy has changed to include many more highly specialized issues, for example climate issues, the inclusion of non-state-actors, such as Greenpeace, which are able to spend a lot of time and money on these issues, has enhanced this process greatly. This is also as now, the diplomatic agenda includes many more issues of so called low politics.
One important outcome from this move towards greater multilateralism and inclusion was the creation of the United Nations. Although it has been said that the UN has been little better than the League of Nations, before it, it nonetheless was created to act as ‘an international forum for the peaceful settlement of disputes and as a deterrent against another world war’ (White), and has certainly lasted a lot longer than the League did.
The importance of NGO representation can be demonstrated by the success of the Ottawa convention to ban landmines. Also CSCAB, as a non-governmental forum, has assisted in creating a new norm within multilateralism, for regional security dialogue.
As global challenges are increasing it has become more important for the world to make a global response. By including global civil society within multilateral diplomacy, the new diplomacy has made important steps forward towards this.

2009-03-22T23:10:00.001Z

New Diplomacy

The current global diplomatic world has become extremely complex, due to many significant factors. One important feature which now exists in the diplomatic domain is the increasing verification of interdependence amongst states but also amongst other actors in the international system. Developments of globalisation have and continue to allow the growth of this dependency. Nevertheless it is quite difficult to assume what the most important aspect of modern diplomacy might be.

The growing importance of transnational organisations in the contemporary global system, which undermines the traditional assumption of ‘statecraft’ due to the increasing significant role of non state actors in diplomatic processes. Thus one can say that non state actors are one important aspect. Environmental, financial and commercial organisations are now included in diplomatic meetings depending on the issues concerned.

Issues’ concerning the political agenda is also a significant aspect. Military concerns are still considered to be on top of the agenda, along with other leading issues also, such as the financial crisis and environmental matters. These factors have led to the increase necessity of multilateral diplomacy, as the current world system is so connected; issues now not only affect one but affect all. Needless to say this is not to say that all actors primarily states need the cooperation of other s in order to achieve their own objectives.
Multilateralism along with the growing inclusion of non state actors is extremely important in new diplomacy. In addition one must not forget the contributions of the technological and communications revolution which has and will continue to change many features of conventional diplomacy

Public diplomacy and the importance of soft power in a complex international system

2009-03-22T22:50:00.001Z

It is undisputable that today’s diplomacy or the so-called “new diplomacy” is greatly challenged by a more complex international system where non-state actors and a more informed world require a new approach in the conduct of diplomacy. Globalization has gradually affected not only intra-state relations but also the conduct of politics in general, it is no longer an exclusive matter reserved for a certain elite. Accountability and public scrutiny have transformed substantially the way not only diplomacy but also politics are conducted. The “information age” we live in today makes manipulation of public opinion a very hard task. Today’s diplomacy is faced with a constant bombardment of scrutiny where a state’s actions need to always be not only justified but also presented within a moral framework. The example of George Bush’s Junior war against his infamous Axis of Evil shows to what extent moral conduct has become an internationally accepted norm after World War II. Free the Iraqi people from Saddam and install democracy covered up the more self-interested intention of a wider influence in the Middle East and control over oil resources. This launched crusade of peace and democracy of course miserably failed for a simple reason George Bush words did not synchronize with the actions on the ground,which brings up the question of the role and importance of soft power in the promotion of a state’s interests. An effective promotion of soft power nowadays needs to include a variety of elements from non-state actors to the internet. Public diplomacy can only be effective when the promotion of certain interests can be mutually recognized: you need to convince the other party that what you want is what they want and vice-versa. The role of the “new diplomacy” is to take into consideration the new perspective that elements such as non-state actors can bring to diplomacy that can encompass a variety of different approaches and views that can only compliment the already set rules of the “old” diplomacy. A greater flexibility is therefore an imminent part of this new era in the conduct of diplomacy. A more successful bilateral, multilateral and polylateral diplomacy need to be backed up by a greater credibility of the state’s “good” intentions therefore a successful and intensive conduct of public diplomacy.

New Diplomacy Involving NGOs

2009-03-22T21:55:00.011Z

There is no doubt in my mind that non-State actors such as NGOs are directly involved in diplomacy in modern times. My focus however is more on religious NGOs, particularly the Vatican. It is interesting to note that the Vatican is a Church and State institution. The Roman Catholic Church has been in existence long before 1929 when the Vatican city- state was established. It is the sovereign territory of the Holy See and official residence of the pope, who is also the head of the Roman Catholic Church. This places the Vatican in a unique position in terms of diplomacy as it has observer status in the UN and has diplomatic ties with several countries including Arab states. As it is a church/state institution, it is often not clear when it functions as an NGO. Obviously, on the church side, the pope speaks against abortion and promotes this philosophy worldwide, bearing in mind that the Catholic Church has over one billion members worldwide, meaning many countries are aware of this. We must also remember that countries like Croatia, Poland, Spain and a few others are predominantly Catholic. Whether by divine providence or fate, the late pope John Paul II, the most charismatic pope ever, who was made for television, came along at the right time, when technology would finally make him available to peoples all round the world. His funeral created diplomatic tensions for China and Taiwan. The Chinese government boycotted the funeral because of the attendance of President Chen of Taiwan. The deceased pope was no doubt a diplomat either in life or in death. Even the current pope continues to spearhead the Catholic Church in world affairs such as ethical, educational, and environmental issues. Meetings with government officials as well as other NGOs are often held at Vatican city with the pope in his capacity of head of state while he appears to the public like his predecessor as an NGO fighting for the common good of man on basic issues of life. The current pope's recent visit to the US appears to be both in his capacity as a head of state and as the head of the Roman Catholic Church as state issues were probably discussed with the American President and open mass was also held there. Last year, an international children's NGO, International Federation Terre des Hommes, wrote an open letter to the pope to intervene in Zimbabwe, urging President Mugabe to reject violence and uphold democracy. What is not clear to me is whether this children's NGO was liasing with the pope as a statesman or as a religious figure. One thing is clear though, the pope is certainly a diplomat. Any comments...

Crafted Agenda of the new Diplomacy

2009-03-22T20:53:00.007Z

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy is based on the emergence of non governmental organisation, multinational corporations, and new world actors. However, many would argue that the secret of the new diplomacy resides heavily in the old diplomacy.

Non governmental organisations are not elected bodies in the domestic and international affairs. For that reason, it is difficult to argue the importance of NGO’s in real political agenda and process other than charity. Some of NGO’s characteristics include peaceful agenda which has the potential to mobilise people to form a public opinion and above all confront states when there is a real clash of interests. The legitimacy of non governmental resides in trust that the general society feels strongly about in order to eradicate all form of evil and promote good. It is also necessary to note that NGO’s are also building networks and coalitions with major organisation such as the United Nations and multinational corporations. It is also worth considering the fact that the global membership of some NGO’s supersedes that of most states and some multinational corporations economic positions exceeds some nation states gross domestic product.

Looking at new world actors, ranging from religious guru and celebrities it is necessary to note that religious leaders role in the world affairs existed before and after the famous unrest of the world history. For instance the role that the Roman Catholic Church in Poland. Furthermore, the Vatican has a seat at the United Nations. Not only is Vatican a state within a state, it is a state in world diplomacy.

New world actors also include celebrities and the most important element about these kinds of actors is that they are professional communicators. Celebrity diplomats are often regarded as being good at publicity they can easily engage with the general public.

Many would argue that one of the most important phases of the new diplomacy has extended the sovereignty of the great power through the United nations process and non governmental organization. Rising diplomats are directly or indirectly used by their parent states and most importantly are dominated and subordinated without taking them over since because they are attractive and people all over the world tend to trust their noble works. However, it is difficult to foresee old diplomacy loose it grips as the new gathers its strength.

Public Diplomacy- Discussions of seminar 5/7

2009-03-22T20:50:00.008Z

Following the seminar discussion of week 5/7 we note Hans Morgenthau dismissing New Diplomacy naming it Public Diplomacy. In my opinion, Public Diplomacy is very important as we see that is directly link (for example) from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office directly to diplomatic missions overseas. This is is not relatively new, it can be traced since the Ancient Greece were head of missions did not engaged in secret negotiation, they openly negotiated policies in public.

Today Public Diplomacy, continues to be used by diplomats as a way of communication to gain direct foreign investment to their state, to promote tourism of their country as it is a source of income and finally is used to address or influence the public of other states on issues such as the promotion of exports or foreign investment in the state where they are officially accredited. According to Berridge, it can also be used as 'propaganda' by government coercively in order to mislead the individuals. Technically, this can also be used as a form of subversion, for instance in embassies within the diplomatic corps there are spies who are sent to create disorder, create unrest in the state which they are accredited, in the long term this can lead to regime change or even a dangerous military coup. We have seen this in 1973 when the United States government were implicated in the when Augusto Pinochet became president while former president was removed and murdered.

Public diplomacy can be used in terms of promoting the values and culture of other state whereas in some situation we have seen the British Council coming under-fire for apparently being accused of using their organization as a form of 'subversion' to create democracy. This has happen in East Europe and the Middle East. In terms of political issues it has also been the key to solve crises hence we note a link between the government and the public. In conflict ridden states in the Middle East diplomats strive to influence the activities and opinions of the public overseas to try and influence their government to be democratic, this remains to be seen. Nevertheless, since we live in a globalized world todays non-state actors from Non-Governmental-Organizations (NGO's) have an important role to address and influence on issues such as human rights and poverty in troubled states.

In multilateral organizations such the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) we note the engagement and dialogue between officials representing their state. However even in multilateral institutions there is still the need for secrecy, we see 'corridor' or 'hallway' diplomacy in the EU and UN where negotiations are takes places behind close doors and members of the public are excluded.

Most Important Aspect of Diplomacy

2009-03-22T20:50:00.005Z

What is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy?

To fully understand this question I had to look back over the characteristics of ‘New’ diplomacy and read this book which discussed new diplomacy in a lot of detail, the book was by José Calvet De Magalhaes.

Over these past weeks I’ve come to understand that not only is there a ‘new’ diplomacy but there are lots of other ways to operate in diplomatic situations such as bilateral diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy and ‘polylateral’ diplomacy. In order to grow and achieve a better understanding of diplomacy I believe that we must be able to operate on these three levels of diplomacy as this is an integral part of being able to work as a diplomat.

Another important aspect of the ‘new’ diplomacy is the new ways they are now able to communicate between states, in conferences and through propaganda, to a certain extent. Celebrities have now highlighted aspects of a country that need to be addressed; they’ve also worked alongside NGOs to bring more support to this region because we tend to care more about what a celebrity is doing than what a politician is doing unfortunately. In 1996 a similar method was used in the Ottawa Process where ‘new’ diplomacy used other means of communication between international organisations and conferences to carry out a treaty banning anti-personnel land mines.

As we can see all three methods of diplomacy; Bilateral, Multilateral and Polylateral are a collective method where issues arise and are dealt with in an effective way using these methods, lively debates can occur and resolutions can be discussed. However, Multilateral and Bilateral are the main means of resolving conflicts nowadays and the use of polylateral diplomacy needs to be used more in order for it to become a more effective form of diplomacy used in certain situations.