As we all know 'diplomacy' is a way of communication between states that looks for negotiations and to resolve any conflicts by peace. Therefore , traditional diplomacy has played a vital role in world politics in the 19th and 20th centuries.
As relationships between states expanded the role of diplomats were huge , they had to travel a lot and make negotiations on regular basis and that become civilized by the establishment of embassies. Representing their countries and protecting the rights of the citizens and helping them by any means which is still seen nowadays, there might be changes due to the globalized world that we live in today. The emergence of summit diplomacy , the state leaders being involved in diplomacy . I believe, time is not a fact , now or then it doesn't matter, if you are head of a state i cant imagine how incredibly busy they are , they wouldn't have the time to be traveling around the world all the time there is still a need of professional diplomat to do the pre-negotiations and to act on the behalf of their home state.
Traditional diplomacy were more based on bilateral basis, but its no longer the case , interestingly new diplomacy enabled both state and non-state actors to engage in the process these days.
If we think about it , the traditional diplomacy was the initiative system that enabled the following ones , of course there will be changes and updates due to the globalized world that we live in today.
Sunday, 1 March 2009
TRADITIONAL DIPLOMACY: WHAT ARE YOUR IMPRESSIONS OF THE ‘OLD’ DIPLOMACY? HAS IT BECOME OUTMODED?
Traditional ‘old’ diplomacy has a long history as discussed in our last mandatory blog entrance referring to Barry White and the tablet from 2500BC. Traditional diplomatic instruments and institutions have shown a remarkable resilience and ability to adapt throughout time. However, during the 20th century a lot of factors have changed introducing new means of faster communication and interaction. International society has become a more complex place with both state and non-state actors engaging in the policy formulating process. The issues have also become more complex, diverting the focus from ‘only’ ‘high’ politics to including ‘low’ politics issues on the agenda. Furthermore, new paradigms were ‘born’ like the notion of ‘human security’ introducing new concerns of the environment, health, good governance, human rights, etc. as global challenges need collective solutions.
Morgenthau was very pessimistic about the evolution of diplomacy, and meant that it would be a cause of conflict in itself due to the publicity and the inability to save face. However, other disagrees with this view point like the former Indian diplomat Kishan Rana, who argues that the bilateral institutions far from have been rendered obsolete despite of technological advances as new roles and obligations still need to be carried out such as the marketing of the country trying to attract FDI among other things. Furthermore, there is still the need of minor tasks such as consular services, and the creation of networks and maintaining them.
Relatively new instruments such as shuttle and summitry diplomacy may be useful, but behind the scenes the traditional instruments are still in use and far from outmoded.
It is my impression that the ‘old’ diplomacy consisting of secret, bilateral diplomacy concerned with ‘high’ politics of security, war and territory, is still relevant despite new incentives like multilateral, shuttle and summitry diplomacy as well as the technological advances. The traditional diplomatic instruments are working alongside the ‘new’ fulfilling the demands of globalisation and its challenges, and it is in my opinion far from being outmoded due to the adaptability and versatility.
Morgenthau was very pessimistic about the evolution of diplomacy, and meant that it would be a cause of conflict in itself due to the publicity and the inability to save face. However, other disagrees with this view point like the former Indian diplomat Kishan Rana, who argues that the bilateral institutions far from have been rendered obsolete despite of technological advances as new roles and obligations still need to be carried out such as the marketing of the country trying to attract FDI among other things. Furthermore, there is still the need of minor tasks such as consular services, and the creation of networks and maintaining them.
Relatively new instruments such as shuttle and summitry diplomacy may be useful, but behind the scenes the traditional instruments are still in use and far from outmoded.
It is my impression that the ‘old’ diplomacy consisting of secret, bilateral diplomacy concerned with ‘high’ politics of security, war and territory, is still relevant despite new incentives like multilateral, shuttle and summitry diplomacy as well as the technological advances. The traditional diplomatic instruments are working alongside the ‘new’ fulfilling the demands of globalisation and its challenges, and it is in my opinion far from being outmoded due to the adaptability and versatility.
Traditional Diplomacy
First of all we have to acknowledge the nature of the 'bilateral' negotiations, they are not 'bad' nor 'good' most government considered to hide these processes from member of the public as well as politicians to avoid the seizure or perhaps the sabotage of a successful agreements. I believe the contents in the documents for the negotiations are mostly for development issues, human rights, security, high politics and the most significants for to the promotion of concord between states, wars issues and possibly territory.
In the traditional system of diplomacy ceremonies proceeded through protocol (for example) an Ambassador presents the letters of credence addressed from the head of state of his/her nation to the president or king of the country were he/she is being sent, during the ceremony the official is usually accompanied by diplomats. Moreover during the aftermath of the Second World War there was a rise of multilateral bodies such as the European Union and the United Nations were conferences takes place between political actors discussing general matters such as illegal immigration and economic crisis.
Furthermore, traditional diplomacy continues to be old-fashion because states remains in contact with other states no 'bilateral' but 'multilateral' where they conduct negotiations with organizations such as NGO's and International Organizations were we see the negotiations is very broad. My views about 'New' diplomacy is that i believe is open we see this in New Zealand when members of the public are requested to raise their comments on particular issues of policy which will then be taken into consideration by the government. In some respects 'New' diplomacy has some traditional principles of 'Old diplomacy it does appears to bring order in comparison with 'Old' diplomacy. 'New' diplomacy satisfy the requirements of globalization, i still believe with the continuing unstable political climate and challenges in some parts of the world 'Old' diplomacy will continue to play a major role in world politics.
Is the old diplomacy out-moded?
While we can trace traditional diplomacy back to the city states of Athens, the formal diplomatic institutions of today can be traced back to the fifteenth-century Italy. Traditional diplomatic features have be transformed by a more complex world of today. After the first world war, the need for a new form of diplomatic system was called for. In analysing the new form of diplomacy, we should not forget to be able to tell on what is new about the new.
Arguably, the old system is not adequate enough to contain the more complex world. Its state-centred focus is no longer adequate to deal with the different actors that have emerged.
In a globalize world, focusing on state will narrow our view of world politics, because the emergence of intense interdependence and global problems, give rooms to other non-state actors. For example, negotiations on environmental problems like global warming, proves that state-centred process of diplomacy lacks credibility due to the fact that non-state actors like Green-peace who have a great knowledge in environmental issues can not be left-out in the negotiating process. In order to give them a room, then Summitry or multilateral diplomacy is therefore important here.
However, to totally discredit the old diplomacy will be a myth, due to the fact that the New diplomacy still incorporates the structures and processes of the Old diplomacy. In the New diplomacy, what can be said to be new is the fact that secrecy is no longer seen as viable to diplomacy but open to public scrutiny, and also dissociating diplomacy from the elites alone. However, the extent to which the New diplomacy is open and taking away from the elites is debatable. For example, bilateral diplomatic relations that involves intelligence are still kept secret from the public, coupled with the fact that diplomats are still the grouping of aristocrats, believe it or not. If in doubt, then check your country diplomats. Also, the traditional institution of diplomacy, like the foreign office, embassies and joint commissions are still active and in place. Thus, to conclude that the traditional system of diplomacy is outmoded will be a fallacy. What can be gain-said, is that the traditional diplomatic institutions still endures through time , except with the fact that the more globalize, technological- advanced world with new global problems, has added or created innovations in diplomatic structures and relations and has not rendered it obsolete.
Arguably, the old system is not adequate enough to contain the more complex world. Its state-centred focus is no longer adequate to deal with the different actors that have emerged.
In a globalize world, focusing on state will narrow our view of world politics, because the emergence of intense interdependence and global problems, give rooms to other non-state actors. For example, negotiations on environmental problems like global warming, proves that state-centred process of diplomacy lacks credibility due to the fact that non-state actors like Green-peace who have a great knowledge in environmental issues can not be left-out in the negotiating process. In order to give them a room, then Summitry or multilateral diplomacy is therefore important here.
However, to totally discredit the old diplomacy will be a myth, due to the fact that the New diplomacy still incorporates the structures and processes of the Old diplomacy. In the New diplomacy, what can be said to be new is the fact that secrecy is no longer seen as viable to diplomacy but open to public scrutiny, and also dissociating diplomacy from the elites alone. However, the extent to which the New diplomacy is open and taking away from the elites is debatable. For example, bilateral diplomatic relations that involves intelligence are still kept secret from the public, coupled with the fact that diplomats are still the grouping of aristocrats, believe it or not. If in doubt, then check your country diplomats. Also, the traditional institution of diplomacy, like the foreign office, embassies and joint commissions are still active and in place. Thus, to conclude that the traditional system of diplomacy is outmoded will be a fallacy. What can be gain-said, is that the traditional diplomatic institutions still endures through time , except with the fact that the more globalize, technological- advanced world with new global problems, has added or created innovations in diplomatic structures and relations and has not rendered it obsolete.
Traditional Diplomacy has it become old-fashioned?
"Old diplomacy" can be differentiated from its antecedents (Ancient and Medieval worlds), mainly due to the fact that represents relations process between modern states, and with boost of relations between nations, the government of those countries found it crucial to negotiate between each other on a regular basis, for that diplomats had to be sent abroad, “attached” to them a series of rights and immunities, such as the right to perform their business without trepidation and be fairly treated by the host country.
That is what is still happening nowadays, if we think about embassies and diplomatic agents, such as ambassadors, that “exist” to represent their country abroad and to ensure that its citizens have its rights protected in a foreigner country. To refer that Italy was the pioneer on the establishment of those institutions/embassies abroad.
The “old diplomacy” was structured mostly on a bilateral basis and normally undertaken in secrecy, means that it only involved two states.
Is the traditional diplomacy considered old-fashion?
Yes, since the relations between states can no longer be bilateral, although the states are still the main actors, they have to share the negotiations process with other institutions such as NGO’s and intergovernmental organizations. The traditional diplomacy Agenda is too narrow, and the fact that only states play a role in the preoccupations of diplomacy, often means that those will mainly reflect the government preoccupations. Thus, the participation of other actors such as NGO’s (focused on more broad aspects) became essential.
Furthermore, in the traditional diplomacy the embassies are only concerned about the physical security of its citizens, which is not enough, as the social and economically conditions of its citizens has
to be taken into consideration.
The embassies should ensure the well-being of its people at whole levels while they are in a foreigner country.
That is what is still happening nowadays, if we think about embassies and diplomatic agents, such as ambassadors, that “exist” to represent their country abroad and to ensure that its citizens have its rights protected in a foreigner country. To refer that Italy was the pioneer on the establishment of those institutions/embassies abroad.
The “old diplomacy” was structured mostly on a bilateral basis and normally undertaken in secrecy, means that it only involved two states.
Is the traditional diplomacy considered old-fashion?
Yes, since the relations between states can no longer be bilateral, although the states are still the main actors, they have to share the negotiations process with other institutions such as NGO’s and intergovernmental organizations. The traditional diplomacy Agenda is too narrow, and the fact that only states play a role in the preoccupations of diplomacy, often means that those will mainly reflect the government preoccupations. Thus, the participation of other actors such as NGO’s (focused on more broad aspects) became essential.
Furthermore, in the traditional diplomacy the embassies are only concerned about the physical security of its citizens, which is not enough, as the social and economically conditions of its citizens has
to be taken into consideration.
The embassies should ensure the well-being of its people at whole levels while they are in a foreigner country.
traditional diplomacy
‘What are your impressions of the ‘old’ diplomacy? Has it become outmoded?’
The ‘old’ diplomacy is a traditional approach to the management of the relationships between states and other international political actors. It stands on a bilateral basis which means that only two states are included in the dialogue that was usually happening in secrecy. The only possible outcome in this system was a mutual agreement of settling a conflict or a dispute. The agenda was not very wide, usually the actors of the talks were negotiating the shift of a territory from one state to another or the other possible topic was an acquisition of another throne. Also peace and war issued were an essential part of negotiations. The old system of diplomacy was characterized by ceremonies conducted through the protocol.
In my point of view, especially when I consider the period of time few centuries ago it seems to me that the fact that negotiations were conducted as secret meetings does not necessarily have to be of a negative nature. We need to remember that those times were fairly dangerous as the security was not organized on such a high level as it is today, also the public and public opinion was taken differently as the division between educated and uneducated was significant and that is why it could not be considered as a whole. I believe that even when the negotiations would be publicized in some way the public opinion influence on the decisions would not have the same importance and impact on the outcome as it happens today. Also because of the state-to-state organization of talks the outcome was quite clear as there were only two real possibilities: an agreement or a disagreement. Today because of the multilateral basis it might be difficult to find a solution for certain questions, especially in cases when the decision needs to agreed unanimously as some states agree on the resolution but other states do not.
This is not to claim that the traditional organization of diplomatic practice was more simple and convenient than the new diplomacy approach. Surely the trends have shifted over the long time so as the circumstances in which diplomacy is employed also the way it is used and put in the practice needs to be updated to fulfill the needs of our time. This means that today the general public is more interested in what is happening with the state and its organization and position among other states and so the people wants to be more involved and let to have a word into the decision-making so the shift from secrecy to ‘openness’ of the diplomacy might be seen as a reaction of the world changing.
However, whether the old system has more advantages or disadvantages, it was a pioneer system that enabled the following generations to take examples from and possibly improve it to shape it in a requested way of practicing.
The ‘old’ diplomacy is a traditional approach to the management of the relationships between states and other international political actors. It stands on a bilateral basis which means that only two states are included in the dialogue that was usually happening in secrecy. The only possible outcome in this system was a mutual agreement of settling a conflict or a dispute. The agenda was not very wide, usually the actors of the talks were negotiating the shift of a territory from one state to another or the other possible topic was an acquisition of another throne. Also peace and war issued were an essential part of negotiations. The old system of diplomacy was characterized by ceremonies conducted through the protocol.
In my point of view, especially when I consider the period of time few centuries ago it seems to me that the fact that negotiations were conducted as secret meetings does not necessarily have to be of a negative nature. We need to remember that those times were fairly dangerous as the security was not organized on such a high level as it is today, also the public and public opinion was taken differently as the division between educated and uneducated was significant and that is why it could not be considered as a whole. I believe that even when the negotiations would be publicized in some way the public opinion influence on the decisions would not have the same importance and impact on the outcome as it happens today. Also because of the state-to-state organization of talks the outcome was quite clear as there were only two real possibilities: an agreement or a disagreement. Today because of the multilateral basis it might be difficult to find a solution for certain questions, especially in cases when the decision needs to agreed unanimously as some states agree on the resolution but other states do not.
This is not to claim that the traditional organization of diplomatic practice was more simple and convenient than the new diplomacy approach. Surely the trends have shifted over the long time so as the circumstances in which diplomacy is employed also the way it is used and put in the practice needs to be updated to fulfill the needs of our time. This means that today the general public is more interested in what is happening with the state and its organization and position among other states and so the people wants to be more involved and let to have a word into the decision-making so the shift from secrecy to ‘openness’ of the diplomacy might be seen as a reaction of the world changing.
However, whether the old system has more advantages or disadvantages, it was a pioneer system that enabled the following generations to take examples from and possibly improve it to shape it in a requested way of practicing.
Traditional diplomacy: What are your impressions of the ‘old’ diplomacy? Has it become outmoded?
This time I will give my opinion on traditional diplomacy and whether it became outmoded. I assume that is impossible to date when diplomacy started, because it is possible to identify diplomacy characteristics from the beginning when human history was recorded. Therefore agree with scholars who date traditional diplomacy from 17th century, which was developed in Europe. Then first time emerged concepts of national interests such as raw materials and the balance of power between rivalry nations. So if we look at contemporary diplomacy it is easy to identify same diplomacy concept which is definitely based on national interests, but today diplomacy is more complex than ever before, international arena faces many new actors and lobbies with various capabilities to shape countries national interests, naturally diplomacy as well. As we now “new diplomacy” is more open to the public and other nations and this help to maintain stability and trust between nations. This gives us clear view that “old diplomacy” is not much outmoded, because it is foundation of present and future diplomatic actions, “new diplomacy” is based on traditional diplomacy principles, plus has some new principles which were brought in parallel with globalisation and changing world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
